From mark at kingant.net  Mon Nov  1 03:25:03 2010
From: mark at kingant.net (Mark Doliner)
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 00:25:03 -0700
Subject: Google SoC 2010 travel reimbursement
In-Reply-To: <20101031235048.GB1083@colt>
References: <20101031235048.GB1083@colt>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinbw5UQw=u1LnZ_y7bUWY7o3FRUnm-k42r_b8SE@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Ethan Blanton <elb at pidgin.im> wrote:
> Elliott's travel expenses were $1382.32 CAD, which works out to
> $1353.39 USD on the day of purchase (10/4/2010). ?I propose that IMF
> Inc. mail Elliott a check for $1353.39 as soon as enough votes come in
> to approve the measure so that he does not have to float this payment
> any longer.

I vote yea!

--Mark


From seanegan at gmail.com  Mon Nov  1 14:24:47 2010
From: seanegan at gmail.com (Sean Egan)
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 11:24:47 -0700
Subject: Invoice from CT Corp
In-Reply-To: <20100415012938.GA12734@colt>
References: <e61d333f1003231252t2e6a11fag1e0b515e1d3a8422@mail.gmail.com>
	<20100415012938.GA12734@colt>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=Wp7cp05mdTsuzRG=x0qsk8gpV1cxxEOxBg8-U@mail.gmail.com>

Hey Ethan,

I had taken care of this, but the check got returned; I think our bank
was bought a few years ago or something? Could you send a check for
$358.00 to:

CT Corporation
PO Box 4349
Carol Stream IL  60197-4349

This is regarding Invoice # 2004620550-00. Our account is under
Instant Messaging Freedom, Inc., and our account number is 09400147411

Thanks!

On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Ethan Blanton <elb at pidgin.im> wrote:
> Sean Egan spake unto us the following wisdom:
>> We're represented in Delaware by CT Corp http://ct.wolterskluwer.com/
>> who has sent us (through the SFLC) an invoice for $358 for 2009.
>> Ethan, do you want to take care of this (I'll forward you the
>> invoice), or should I?
>
> Oh crap, this got buried in my inbox and I never replied. ?I will take
> care of this ASAP, if you haven't.
>
>> $358/yr seems a bit expensive for what we use them for, so I'd like to
>> shop around a little for a better deal, if there are no objections.
>
> No objections, of course.
>
> Ethan
>
> --
> The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws [that have no remedy
> for evils]. ?They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor
> determined to commit crimes.
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?-- Cesare Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishments", 1764
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iQEVAwUBS8ZsAv8fixZ3H8crAQgwOAf+ILldaZ9SJUA0v/53s6OYnBfx1WSF2vaN
> E+2yJCTzLIQax5XDxgICjZmuprKi3yVtb89/whJhfQ+RMdUs74JnYA+n1+tbo8tM
> 7bnZB0VqCvQlyg/UkkdM2Mc5dq4r8rHkTvW8iXV75Fw6k/x6yQaOolTCrNdB1nJA
> zfM79P0/s7AR8ppaciQEanwVxckYa4bnwEWYzMsGBt0qXoP0HwYShok8RUECKGMy
> ubNWjnjwxoV4X0yHK5bv4JEp8QUHV2DNqmLUxKLTyBePmzsggZm9MxvhzeBT2lHE
> y03qJdEAook9ZFF9sNb5he6sj/QAO/OS1iJ2SvpTJmxnP4sSGHx2Gw==
> =w+02
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>


From seanegan at gmail.com  Mon Nov  1 14:26:38 2010
From: seanegan at gmail.com (Sean Egan)
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 11:26:38 -0700
Subject: Google SoC 2010 travel reimbursement
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinbw5UQw=u1LnZ_y7bUWY7o3FRUnm-k42r_b8SE@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20101031235048.GB1083@colt>
	<AANLkTinbw5UQw=u1LnZ_y7bUWY7o3FRUnm-k42r_b8SE@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimzkx5dvhRL5kFpJnkDHfU0YCZadic_M7CXALgs@mail.gmail.com>

I approve this as well.

On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 12:25 AM, Mark Doliner <mark at kingant.net> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Ethan Blanton <elb at pidgin.im> wrote:
>> Elliott's travel expenses were $1382.32 CAD, which works out to
>> $1353.39 USD on the day of purchase (10/4/2010). ?I propose that IMF
>> Inc. mail Elliott a check for $1353.39 as soon as enough votes come in
>> to approve the measure so that he does not have to float this payment
>> any longer.
>
> I vote yea!
>
> --Mark
>
> _______________________________________________
> Board mailing list
> Board at imfreedom.org
> http://pidgin.im/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/board
>


From elb at pidgin.im  Mon Nov  1 15:39:41 2010
From: elb at pidgin.im (Ethan Blanton)
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 15:39:41 -0400
Subject: Google SoC 2010 travel reimbursement
In-Reply-To: <20101031235048.GB1083@colt>
References: <20101031235048.GB1083@colt>
Message-ID: <20101101193941.GA5815@colt>

Ethan Blanton spake unto us the following wisdom:
> Elliott's travel expenses were $1382.32 CAD, which works out to
> $1353.39 USD on the day of purchase (10/4/2010).  I propose that IMF
> Inc. mail Elliott a check for $1353.39 as soon as enough votes come in
> to approve the measure so that he does not have to float this payment
> any longer.

There were five yea votes on this issue, I will cut the check today.

Ethan
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 482 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://pidgin.im/pipermail/board/attachments/20101101/e78e1e2b/attachment.pgp>

From elb at pidgin.im  Mon Nov  1 15:40:13 2010
From: elb at pidgin.im (Ethan Blanton)
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 15:40:13 -0400
Subject: Invoice from CT Corp
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=Wp7cp05mdTsuzRG=x0qsk8gpV1cxxEOxBg8-U@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e61d333f1003231252t2e6a11fag1e0b515e1d3a8422@mail.gmail.com>
	<20100415012938.GA12734@colt>
	<AANLkTi=Wp7cp05mdTsuzRG=x0qsk8gpV1cxxEOxBg8-U@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20101101194013.GB5815@colt>

Sean Egan spake unto us the following wisdom:
> I had taken care of this, but the check got returned; I think our bank
> was bought a few years ago or something? Could you send a check for
> $358.00 to:
> 
> CT Corporation
> PO Box 4349
> Carol Stream IL  60197-4349
> 
> This is regarding Invoice # 2004620550-00. Our account is under
> Instant Messaging Freedom, Inc., and our account number is 09400147411

I will take care of this today.

Ethan
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 482 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://pidgin.im/pipermail/board/attachments/20101101/3eb19146/attachment.pgp>

From seanegan at gmail.com  Mon Nov  1 15:41:57 2010
From: seanegan at gmail.com (Sean Egan)
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 12:41:57 -0700
Subject: Invoice from CT Corp
In-Reply-To: <20101101194013.GB5815@colt>
References: <e61d333f1003231252t2e6a11fag1e0b515e1d3a8422@mail.gmail.com>
	<20100415012938.GA12734@colt>
	<AANLkTi=Wp7cp05mdTsuzRG=x0qsk8gpV1cxxEOxBg8-U@mail.gmail.com>
	<20101101194013.GB5815@colt>
Message-ID: <AANLkTik3f6oC2JihKMSj6qchqOoXqNf29jjMpWvJZu0V@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you.

On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Ethan Blanton <elb at pidgin.im> wrote:
> Sean Egan spake unto us the following wisdom:
>> I had taken care of this, but the check got returned; I think our bank
>> was bought a few years ago or something? Could you send a check for
>> $358.00 to:
>>
>> CT Corporation
>> PO Box 4349
>> Carol Stream IL ?60197-4349
>>
>> This is regarding Invoice # 2004620550-00. Our account is under
>> Instant Messaging Freedom, Inc., and our account number is 09400147411
>
> I will take care of this today.
>
> Ethan
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iQEVAwUBTM8Xnf8fixZ3H8crAQiQ/Qf/VQx7FsE0//o+Ka53IelWs9/uPm+EVNN9
> LPXQVaruaOOY31u1kJjXwvvPqdGyQlQihoya9sTHElnWNRBK3nnn9VOGsfGN3OUv
> DGI2QDKa6Iz+w6d36j6rSJObRaP9iA06Cc92DcgUuX/cJzh+u8AXla8YsPtrTUon
> a46c1FSr6nLExVezLOzZ53MTKCX9cxH0tSK0zRXD3ZmtEgSaRpBBcAlJX4Lf0QGR
> QRnUywXtMZCWVmz1k9jUoFxthqgVX1ZjHLs3Q9u8nxYtcxbPeRjj+NtD5HrI0yBk
> ydbYBcNPqyooaaZhLHr05iVzDFqAwahvTmtBFMXkQnPiOUw/ChLYvg==
> =GXtz
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>


From elb at pidgin.im  Mon Nov  1 18:12:49 2010
From: elb at pidgin.im (Ethan Blanton)
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 18:12:49 -0400
Subject: Google SoC 2010 travel reimbursement
In-Reply-To: <20101101193941.GA5815@colt>
References: <20101031235048.GB1083@colt>
 <20101101193941.GA5815@colt>
Message-ID: <20101101221249.GA12518@colt>

FYI to the board:

Fulfilling these two checks cost us $6 apiece, because Old National
(our bank) has started charging for cashier's checks.  I went ahead
and paid for them because 1) Elliott's account is international, and
it should smooth his cashing, and 2) CT Corp's account is long past
due, ditto.  However, we incurred an extra expense of $12.  I am not
required to get approval for this according to our bylaws, but I do
need to report it.

No action is necessary on your part.

Ethan
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 482 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://pidgin.im/pipermail/board/attachments/20101101/d49754d1/attachment.pgp>

From seanegan at gmail.com  Fri Nov 12 16:52:58 2010
From: seanegan at gmail.com (Sean Egan)
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 13:52:58 -0800
Subject: GPL vs. Apple Mac App Store?
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinEZEPU5fRMT5J3G4Fca5j=7ar_p+9cX4VzF6md@mail.gmail.com>
References: <05113397-B982-4044-8A64-E90625E48EE4@adium.im>
	<AANLkTinEZEPU5fRMT5J3G4Fca5j=7ar_p+9cX4VzF6md@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinRNYDOkbCqwe+g2J+=8gVzVM1fABNu1+UeESzF@mail.gmail.com>

Karen just pinged me to let me know she's starting on this and should
get back to us on Friday.

On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Sean Egan <seanegan at gmail.com> wrote:
> We did not. I pinged her last week, but I'll ping her again now.
>
> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 5:19 PM, Evan Schoenberg, M.D. <evan at adium.im> wrote:
>> Sean,
>>
>> Did we hear back yet from IMF's lawyerly representatives regarding the potential compatibility of the GPL with the Apple Mac App Store?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Evan
>


From evan at adium.im  Wed Nov 17 08:45:33 2010
From: evan at adium.im (Evan Schoenberg, M.D.)
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 07:45:33 -0600
Subject: Mac Developer Program license
In-Reply-To: <20101117131700.7BF011495D3@adc.apple.com>
References: <20101117131700.7BF011495D3@adc.apple.com>
Message-ID: <BA6702DD-56D7-46D2-A2A1-1439B5ECBA00@adium.im>

Sean, any update from the lawyers?  Apple is getting impatient :)

Thanks,
Evan

On Nov 17, 2010, at 7:17 AM, Apple Developer Support wrote:

> Dear Evan Schoenberg,
> We are currently waiting for you to agree to the terms of the Mac Developer Program License Agreement.
> If you do not click through the License Agreement within the next seven (7) days, we will assume you are no longer interested in continuing your enrollment and will withdraw your request.
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://pidgin.im/pipermail/board/attachments/20101117/0f3b3ef0/attachment.htm>

From seanegan at gmail.com  Wed Nov 17 18:40:46 2010
From: seanegan at gmail.com (Sean Egan)
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 15:40:46 -0800
Subject: Mac Developer Program license
In-Reply-To: <BA6702DD-56D7-46D2-A2A1-1439B5ECBA00@adium.im>
References: <20101117131700.7BF011495D3@adc.apple.com>
	<BA6702DD-56D7-46D2-A2A1-1439B5ECBA00@adium.im>
Message-ID: <AANLkTim1nmi6ET7j0-oez+o_H=6e64fQBfLFvpMyFrGm@mail.gmail.com>

Sorry it's taken so long. I didn't realize there was a deadline, and
so Karen's been working on other stuff for other clients. I just
pinged her back to let her know the deadline. We'll probably hear back
this week.

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 5:45 AM, Evan Schoenberg, M.D. <evan at adium.im> wrote:
> Sean, any update from the lawyers? ?Apple is getting impatient :)
> Thanks,
> Evan
> On Nov 17, 2010, at 7:17 AM, Apple Developer Support wrote:
>
> Dear Evan Schoenberg,
> We are currently waiting for you to agree to the terms of the?Mac Developer
> Program License Agreement.
> If you do not click through the License Agreement within the next seven (7)
> days, we will assume you are no longer interested in continuing your
> enrollment and will withdraw your request.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Board mailing list
> Board at imfreedom.org
> http://pidgin.im/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/board
>
>


From evan at adium.im  Wed Nov 17 18:47:41 2010
From: evan at adium.im (Evan Schoenberg, M.D.)
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 17:47:41 -0600
Subject: Mac Developer Program license
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim1nmi6ET7j0-oez+o_H=6e64fQBfLFvpMyFrGm@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20101117131700.7BF011495D3@adc.apple.com>
	<BA6702DD-56D7-46D2-A2A1-1439B5ECBA00@adium.im>
	<AANLkTim1nmi6ET7j0-oez+o_H=6e64fQBfLFvpMyFrGm@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0F7838F3-3DB4-4686-BFE3-526F74C865BF@adium.im>


On Nov 17, 2010, at 5:40 PM, Sean Egan wrote:

> Sorry it's taken so long. I didn't realize there was a deadline, and
> so Karen's been working on other stuff for other clients. I just
> pinged her back to let her know the deadline. We'll probably hear back
> this week.

I didn't, either, until that email showed up.

-Evan

> 
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 5:45 AM, Evan Schoenberg, M.D. <evan at adium.im> wrote:
>> Sean, any update from the lawyers?  Apple is getting impatient :)
>> Thanks,
>> Evan
>> On Nov 17, 2010, at 7:17 AM, Apple Developer Support wrote:
>> 
>> Dear Evan Schoenberg,
>> We are currently waiting for you to agree to the terms of the Mac Developer
>> Program License Agreement.
>> If you do not click through the License Agreement within the next seven (7)
>> days, we will assume you are no longer interested in continuing your
>> enrollment and will withdraw your request.
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Board mailing list
>> Board at imfreedom.org
>> http://pidgin.im/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/board
>> 
>> 


From mark at kingant.net  Sun Nov 21 03:25:53 2010
From: mark at kingant.net (Mark Doliner)
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 00:25:53 -0800
Subject: Apple's Mac Developer Prorgam license agreement
In-Reply-To: <20101028175253.GA24684@colt>
References: <A7855C82-5DA1-4140-A25E-7CEDEC79D5CE@adium.im>
	<20101028175253.GA24684@colt>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinJgGUu4=Z3iDOek07usN=RxpetF+UqEWuGqHH+@mail.gmail.com>

I just read the document--sorry for being way late.  I basically agree
with Ethan.  I think the agreement is mostly fine with the exception
of a few points in the EULA addendum (Exhibit A to Schedule 1).  Notes
below.

On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Ethan Blanton <elb at pidgin.im> wrote:
> Evan Schoenberg, M.D. spake unto us the following wisdom:

*snip*

> 1) We are required to oversee the usage of Apple Development
> ? software/documentation/etc. by those authorized by IMF Inc to use
> ? said materials. ?(p. 5, 3.1c) In my mind, this simply means that we
> ? need to make sure that access to the paid materials is kept on a
> ? very short leash. ?I would make this a condition of entry. ?(For
> ? example, that you oversee such materials personally, Evan.) I don't
> ? want IMF Inc to have liability because some random Adium developer
> ? I don't know posts a PDF on a blog.

The definition of Authorized Developers on page 2 states, "Your
faculty and staff who ... (c) to the extent such individuals will have
access to Apple Confidential Information, each have written and
binding agreements with You to protect the unauthorized use and
disclosure of such Apple Confidential Information."

The same requirement is mentioned again in section 10.2 (page 12).  My
interpretation is that if we want to
- share Apple Confidential information obtained under the terms of
this agreement, or
- share Apple Software given to us under the terms of this agreement, or
- allow someone to use services bound by the terms of this agreement
then we need a signed written agreement with the people we share with.

> 2) Apple can change the agreement at any time, and the new agreement
> ? must be accepted before development may continue under the program.
> ? (p. 9) I would require that IMF Inc approve this each time, it
> ? cannot just be rubber stamped.

I agree.  IMF should approve changes.

*snip*

> 4) (potential show stopper) While Apple says that FOSS is acceptable
> ? and makes reasonable FOSS protections, the EULA addendum says that
> ? "The license granted to the end-user for th Licensed Application
> ? must be limited to a non-transferable license to use the Licensed
> ? Application on a Mac Product that the end user owns and
> ? controls[...]". ?(p. 22) This is incompatible with the GPL. ?I
> ? don't think Apple will allow a GPL product to be shipped via the
> ? App Store.

That's requirement #2 of exhibit A, and I agree, I think it
incompatible with the GPL.

Other parts of exhibit A that I think are problematic:

Requirement #1: "The EULA may not provide for usage rules for Licensed
Applications that are less restrictive than the Usage Rules set forth
for Licensed Applications in, or otherwise be in conflict with, the
terms of service applicable to the Mac App Store as of the Effective
Date."
What Usage Rules are they referring to?  I think we'd need to review
them in order to decide whether to submit to this license agreement.

Requirement #9: "You must state in the EULA that the end-user must
comply with applicable third party terms of agreement when using Your
Application."
I don't understand this sentence--what third party terms are they
referring to?  I don't think we can comply with this section because
it would mean adding an additional requirement to our license, and I
don't think we can do that.

*snip*

I'll be interested in hearing what Karen says, but I'm not comfortable
agreeing to this license because of the three requirements from
exhibit A that I mentioned above.  Furthermore, I don't understand
Apple's reasoning for the requirements.  From my point of view they
seem overbearing.

--Mark


