From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8504 invoked by alias); 2 Mar 2010 21:06:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 8472 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Mar 2010 21:06:00 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from hermes.mlbassoc.com (HELO mail.chez-thomas.org) (76.76.67.137) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 02 Mar 2010 21:05:54 +0000 Received: by mail.chez-thomas.org (Postfix, from userid 999) id C983B16604E8; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 14:05:49 -0700 (MST) Received: from hermes.chez-thomas.org (hermes_local [192.168.1.101]) by mail.chez-thomas.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B55D816604C7; Tue, 2 Mar 2010 14:05:45 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <4B8D7DA9.8040806@mlbassoc.com> Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 21:06:00 -0000 From: Gary Thomas User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.3a2pre) Gecko/20100211 Shredder/3.2a1pre MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jonathan Larmour CC: Alex Schuilenburg , ecos-maintainers@ecos.sourceware.org Subject: Re: Commercial postings on ecos-discuss etc References: <4B892F8D.5090104@ecoscentric.com> <4B8D1877.4060106@jifvik.org> <4B8D4ABD.3060305@ecoscentric.com> <4B8D709E.3030606@jifvik.org> In-Reply-To: <4B8D709E.3030606@jifvik.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact ecos-maintainers-help@ecos.sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-maintainers-owner@ecos.sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-03/txt/msg00002.txt.bz2 On 03/02/2010 01:10 PM, Jonathan Larmour wrote: > On 02/03/10 17:28, Alex Schuilenburg wrote: >> On 2010-03-02 13:53, Jonathan Larmour wrote: >>> On 27/02/10 14:43, Alex Schuilenburg wrote: >>>> If this is not a commercial post, unfortunately his posting was not >>>> clear as to the nature, reasoning and backing of this research. >>>> >>> Does it need to be? If it was like some of those spam telephone calls >>> one can get where they purport to be "doing a survey" (to get around >>> telemarketing rules) but actually doing advertising/sales, that would be >>> one thing. But this contains no insidious promotion, marketing or sales. >>> It's just a request for people to do a straightforward survey. >>> >> >> To clarify, I understood the maintainers activities and use of >> sourceware to be limited to community interest only. If their use is >> commercial, it should clearly be noted. IMHO the survey clearly will >> benefit the commercial organisation behind it, and not necessarily the >> community, which is my point. If it is not for the benefit of the >> community and is commercial, and as I was previously told, all such >> posts should be so highlighted. If, however, posts of this nature are >> acceptable, then at least I know what the guidance is. > > Lots of posts by people on the ecos lists will benefit companies, rather > than the community! :-) > >>>> I would >>>> be most interested to see laid open what development plans the ecos >>>> maintainers may have for host tool development, as has been strongly >>>> advocated in the past. >>>> >>> I think we both know that there aren't concrete plans here. >>> >> I am not in a position to comment on this > > That leaves me wondering a bit. > >>>> I would also enquire as to why the results are >>>> not being made public for the benefit of the community. >>>> >>> Apparently the results are being made available to those who enter the >>> survey, which is more than sufficient. >>> >> Nope, only those who provide their email addresses, which then gives the >> commercial organisation behing the survey an idea of what type of >> development is being done by that person and/or the organsiation they >> work for, and who to approach for sales etc. John does not have to use >> the email address, just the domain is sufficient, to gain any sales >> information. >> >> IMHO the survey should have been anonymous, with the results made >> public, to be legitimately of community interest. > > Hmm, I see your point in this bit. John, care to comment? Are the > addresses (email or IP) used for _any_ purpose other than sending out > survey results? If so, is this made clear to survey users? > >>>> However, if this is a commercial post, then I would like to ask how the >>>> policy regarding commercial postings has changed. In addition, if John >>>> is conducting this survey for the benefit of his company, I would like >>>> to point out to him and you that I believe the survey does not comply >>>> fully to either the Companies Act 2006 or the Data Protection Act 1998. >>>> >>> That's not an issue for the maintainers. >>> >> Interesting position. > > We can't know the details of laws in all the potential countries that > people may be posting from. > > I'm not condoning anything if the law is being broken, but it's not the > maintainers' job to stop people submitting their own data. And clearly, > marking something as [COMMERCIAL] would make no difference to legalities. > > That being said, I would hope/expect John _is_ complying with the law. > Handling personal data such as email addresses is certainly regulated by > the DPA. I don't know about the Companies Act. > >>>> I would also like further clarification regarding netiquette and >>>> commercial postings on ecos-discuss in this regard. >>>> >>> No mention was made of John's company. There was no advertising, no >>> promotion, and results were available to those who filled in the survey. >>> >>> I fully expect John to use the outcome of the survey to guide his >>> company's actions, but that doesn't make the post commercial IMO. >>> >> An interesting contradiction. A posting does not have to contain >> advertising, sales or anything visible to be commercial in nature. The >> survey is clearly of benefit to his company (as you say so yourself), >> which makes it commercial in nature. Only those who choose to provide >> their email addresses get "some" of the results, and commercial >> organisations such as eCosCentric are explicitly excluded from the >> survey (yet also have an obvious interest in the results of a legitimate >> survey). > > I thought you were claiming it already wasn't legitimate ;-). Anyone > _that_ bothered to find out would fill in the survey (albeit possibly > with bogus data!). > > An obvious solution by John would be to post the results to the ecos > (and other embedded) lists. It would probably be a wise move in any case > to prevent someone putting in bogus data just to get the results! John? > >> There is also a whole host of other information that can be >> gathered from the survey, IP addresses, countries of those taking part >> in the surveys, companies taking part in the survey and their main areas >> of interest, etc etc which also will not be made available, even to >> those people taking part in the survey. This kind of information is >> invaluable to those in the marketplace, and people pay good money to >> professional survey organisations such as CMP Media to get this >> information. I think you have underestimated what kind of information >> can be gathered from surveys... > > If the survey does not make crystal clear the purposes the data gathered > may be used for, and who by, then I believe indeed it would fall foul of > Data Protection law. But again, the maintainers as a body can't be the > ones to make judgements about whether posts comply with data protection > law. I have no reason not to give it the benefit of the doubt. If John > can assure us that no identifiable information (primarily IP/email > addresses) is retained or used, then that would seem acceptable to me > (although I'm deliberately setting aside any legality issues here). > > I very much doubt the maintainers want to go down the route of > moderating the mailing lists. Or anything which implies we are taking > responsibility for the content of the lists (there be dragons!). > >> And going back to my original point. As the survey is being conducted >> by John for the benefit of his company, I would like to know why did he >> just not say so. > > I assume because the results will be distributed, and therefore not > proprietary to the company. Those who fill in the survey do "benefit" > too, so it's not just something for John. Of course that's not carte > blance to anything, as there are degrees. But from the information I've > seen so far I have no reason to assume it falls on the wrong side of the > line. IMHO anyway. But it would seem better to publicise the responses > on the lists, not just the ones who filled in the survey. > > I am also now seeing your point, from a Data Protection Act POV about > knowing who (including companies) is using data, if the data is not > anonymised. But maybe it is anonymised by the time John sees it; maybe > he has no visibility of the IP addresses, or email addresses. Again from > a maintainer *policy* point of view, the default position has to be to > assume things are legitimate. > >> Why did he using his personal (and maintainer) email >> address to solicit responses? Could it be because more people would >> probably respond to the survey than would if they knew there was a >> commercial organisation behind it and that this survey was for that >> company's commercial benefit? This is what IMHO is an abuse of position >> and contradicts the guidelines given regarding commercial postings. > > John's response here already says it was personal research. > > Where do we draw the line with "commercial benefit"? Adverts? Research? > Surveys? Signatures? Email addresses? Indirect references? Mentioning > the company name anywhere in a post? It is too far to say there must be > /no/ commercial benefit. > >>> I'm afraid I really can't see a problem here. >>> >> If that is the case, IMHO this kind of sets a precedent as to what is >> permissible by the other maintainers and commercial organisations, which >> is contrary to what I previously was led to believe and commercially >> adhered to. I obviously am also disappointed that the commercial nature >> and intent of the survey was not initially stated and not made obvious, > > What guidelines are you thinking of? > > It's true that, looking at http://ecos.sourceware.org/intouch.html there > /aren't/ any guidelines at present, which is something I should fix. > Then that may help remove uncertainties, although there will always be > grey areas. > >> that it is in breach of various UK laws because of its commercial ties, >> and that this behaviour is IMHO being condoned by the maintainers. > > We can't condone an allegation with insufficient information. I have more problems with this whole discussion than I do at all to the original posting. John's survey request doesn't even come close to being considered improper or illegal in the U.S. Additionally, I certainly don't know about the intricacies of UK law in these areas and most certainly am not interested in being a policeman. There have been many postings to eCos-discuss in the past that went even further than this that weren't labeled COMMERCIAL and I didn't hear the uproar then. Maybe this is just a case of fallen-out colleagues? I don't know, but I'm done thinking about it and will probably not continue to read this thread anymore... -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Gary Thomas | Consulting for the MLB Associates | Embedded world ------------------------------------------------------------