[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       timekeepers
Subject:    Re: [Pool] Terms of service
From:       Stefan Bethke <stb () lassitu ! de>
Date:       2013-08-31 11:48:13
Message-ID: C958EC7D-3FD5-4D54-866F-B34845CE8837 () lassitu ! de
[Download RAW message or body]

Hi Ask,

Am 31.08.2013 um 01:47 schrieb Ask Bj=F8rn Hansen <ask@ntppool.org>:

> Hi everyone,
> =

> Thank you for all the feedback. I've read all of it but I've a lot of thi=
ngs going on this week so I'll give a summary reply here to the things that=
 stood out from the thread:
> =

> - The goal of adding some legalese is the longevity and stability of the =
project. Even if what we do is generally "free" and "under the radar", we'r=
e increasingly providing a core service to the internet community.

Who's "we" in a legal sense? Right now, I can see lots of parties tied to t=
his. I don't have legal training, but had to deal with contracts a lot in t=
he past years, so my understanding of the current situation is that there i=
s an implied contract between whichever legal entity is responsible for the=
 pool.ntp.org name service (Develooper?) and each individual person registe=
ring one or more servers, and an implied contract between the DNS operators=
 and the users of the name service, and an implied contract between server =
operators and NTP users. Which of these contracts do these TOS apply to? Ma=
ybe adding language to the TOS to clarify that would help. Oh, and the term=
 "NTP Pool" is used, but never defined. Is it the same as the Services?

I fully support creating a legal framework that protects you and everybody =
involved in providing the web site and the name service, but I'm not certai=
n you're in a position to affect much more (legally). In essence, you're th=
e gateway to the actual NTP service, not the provider of the NTP service yo=
urself.

> - The main "target" of the terms of service is the context of a device/ap=
pliance vendor using the NTP Pool.

I think that's a worthwhile target for TOS or a similar construct, but you =
probably should state that specifically. I would think that you can stipula=
te the conditions under which server operators and pool.ntp.org DNS clients=
 are allowed to access that service. If you're aiming specific terms at ven=
dors distributing systems with the pool preconfigured, I think the term "en=
d user" is very misleading. And I don't see how you could force a vendor to=
 do anything, based on the current language, especially if they're configur=
ing the normal pool in their devices, not a vendor pool.

> - A primary goal is to explain (again) that the service is provided by vo=
lunteers and with no warranties. *We* all know that and a moderately though=
tful reader will understand that from the website, wikipedia etc but I don'=
t think there can be too many ways to explain that to everybody else.
> =

> - Secondarily it's to have another place than use.html to explain some st=
upid things not to do. I'm spending a good deal of time working with vendor=
s to not make them do dumb things -- checking time too often or checking ti=
me at midnight, etc. If you have a router that uses time for access control=
 limits with a configuration in 5 minute increments, does it matter if the =
device time is a few seconds off?

I think this comes back to getting an enforceable contract between vendors =
and the DNS service provider. If the language in the TOS does that, more po=
wer to you.

> - Which jurisdiction would be more reasonable than California? I agree it=
 sucks that it can't be "internet community law", but at the point someone =
is suing the project it's not going to be on a mailing list. The servers ar=
e here, I am here and the Network Time Foundation is here (the NTF might be=
 a future home for the project).
> =

> There hasn't been a lawsuit and I don't see any reasonable basis for one,=
 but every now and then I get an angry email from someone who configured th=
eir time zones wrong and missed a meeting and they're upset with me now bec=
ause "time.windows.com gave them the wrong time". If I understand it all co=
rrectly: If someone is nutty enough to file something like that in court (i=
n say Texas) I can't tell the court to take it up on the mailing list, but =
I can tell them to move it to California.
> =

> - I think all the server operators fall in under "agents" or something in=
 the terminology, but I'll have to check with the lawyer.

So the TOS would include protections for the NTP server operators? I'd like=
 to see some language to make clear what obligations and liabilities come w=
ith registering a server in the system.


Good luck,
Stefan

-- =

Stefan Bethke <stb@lassitu.de>   Fon +49 151 14070811




_______________________________________________
pool mailing list
pool@lists.ntp.org
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/pool
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]