Version 2.5 of Mozilla’s Root Store Policy has now been published. This document incorporates by reference the Common CCADB Policy 1.0.1.
With this update, we have mostly worked through the backlog of modernization proposals, and I’d call this a policy fit for a transparent, openly-run root program in 2017. That doesn’t mean that there’s not more that could be done, but we’ve come a long way from policy 2.2, which we were using until six months ago, and which hadn’t been substantively updated since 2012.
We also hope that, very soon, more root store operators will join the CCADB, which will reduce everyone’s costs and administrative burdens on all sides, and hopefully allow root programs to be more responsive to changing circumstances and requests for inclusion or change.
The team behind the Caddy secure-by-default webserver have written a blog post on their experience with MOSS:
The MOSS program kickstarted a new era for Caddy: turning it from a fairly casual (but promising!) open source project into something that is growing more than we would have hoped otherwise. Caddy is seeing more contributions, community engagement, and development than it ever has before! Our experience with MOSS was positive, and we believe in Mozilla’s mission. If you do too, consider submitting your project to MOSS and help make the Internet a better place.
Always nice to find out one’s work makes a difference. :-)
Here’s the announcement. Rather than moving to live somewhere else like The Document Foundation or the Software Freedom Conservancy, Thunderbird will stay with the Mozilla Foundation as its fiscal home, but will disentangle itself from Mozilla Corporation infrastructure. As someone who has been helping steward this exploration process, I’m glad to see it come to a successful outcome.
Also in the world of Thunderbird, the community is discussing the future of the product, in the face of significant upcoming changes to the Gecko platform. On the table is a “Thunderbird++” rewrite/transformation using web technologies. Interesting times…
We are starting to ask MOSS project awardees to write an end-of-award report detailing what happened. Here’s one written a few months ago by the Mio project (Carl Lerche).
“Are you passionate about the Open Web? Do you want to help protect the Internet’s tremendous socioeconomic benefits through policy and advocacy?”
Mozilla is looking for an Internet Policy Manager, to work with the wonderful Raegan in the EU. If you know anyone who might be suitable, please encourage them to apply :-)
Version 2.4 of Mozilla’s CA Policy has now been published. This document incorporates by reference the Common CCADB Policy 1.0 and the Mozilla CCADB Policy 1.0, two new documents which govern our use of the Common CA Database which we hope several root programs will use to ease the administration burden.
This seems pretty super-geeky, but having clear, current, enforceable policies regarding the CAs and root certificates in our root program is important for us to continue to be open and transparent about how we run it, and to enable us to continue to drive the security of the web (which depends on the certificate system) in a positive direction.
The policy had not changed for a long time before this update, so this update addressed issues which were uncontroversial and/or urgent. The next job is to rearrange it into a more logical order and then, after that, for version 2.5, we will be looking at some of the more difficult and longer-term policy challenges we face in this space. Here’s the issue tracker if you want to get some idea of what those are. :-)
With this patch, a shatter’d visage is obscured,
Its’ sneer of cold command in history orphaned.
That one whose results were long once, and secure,
But now resides, antique, imprinted on things best forgotten.
— J.C. Jones’ epitaph for SHA-1
I spoke on Sunday at the FOSDEM conference in the Policy devroom about the Mozilla Root Program, and about the various CA-related incidents of the past 5 years. Here’s the video (48 minutes, WebM):
Given that this only happened two days ago, I should give kudos to the FOSDEM people for their high quality and efficient video processing operation.
Like every year for the past ten or more (except for a couple of years when my wife was due to have a baby), I’ll be going to FOSDEM, the premier European grass-roots FLOSS conference. This year, I’m speaking on the Policy and Legal Issues track, with the title “Reflections on Adjusting Trust: Tales of running an open and transparent Certificate Authority Program“. The talk is on Sunday at 12.40pm in the Legal and Policy Issues devroom (H.1301), and I’ll be talking about how we use the Mozilla root program to improve the state of security and encryption on the Internet, and the various CA misdemeanours we have found along the way. Hope to see you there :-)
Note that the Legal and Policy Issues devroom is usually scarily popular; arrive early if you want to get inside.
Mitchell has been focussed for a while on how Mozilla can make good decisions which are made quickly rather than getting bogged down, but which do not bypass the important step of getting the opinions of a diverse cross-section of interested and knowledgeable members of our community.
In relation to that, I’d like to re-draw everyone’s attention to Productive Discussion, a document which came out of a session at the Summit in Brussels in 2013, and which explains how best to hold a community consultation in a way which invites positive, useful input and avoids the paralysis of assuming that consensus is required before one can move forward.
If there’s a decision you are responsible for making and want to make it using best practice within our community, it’s a recommended read.
A small milestone: the first post in my name on the Mozilla Net Policy blog has just been published. It concerns our filing comments for a US Copyright Office consultation on section 512 of the DMCA – the section dealing with safe harbo(u)rs for intermediary liability. Section 512 contains the rules that mean Facebook, Twitter and other platforms actually let you have a conversation and upload images and videos to talk about, rather than restricting that capability because they are too afraid of immediate copyright liability.
This is not to be confused with section 1201 of the DMCA, which gives the rules for the 3-yearly process for getting DMCA exceptions for important things like phone unlocking. We also filed comments in a consultation on that recently.
We hope that the Copyright Office’s recent attention to these sections bodes well for useful reforms to US copyright law.
Mozilla is 18 today. I’ll drink to that! :-)
 This reference may not work in your jurisdiction.
Software licenses are the constitution for a community. The license a group picks for their software is indicative of how they would like their community to work. GPL-using communities have one set of norms around sharing, BSD or Apache-using communities have another way of working together. That is, of course, as long as everyone using the code plays by the rules.
Basically the only organization attempting to make sure that users of GPL code respect the wishes of the authors of that code is the Software Freedom Conservancy. As well as other excellent work like providing a financial and organizational home for projects, they enforce the GPL – most recently, after five years of fruitless negotiation, in a lawsuit against VMWare, who have taken parts of Linux and put them in their proprietary ESXi product.
Whether you are a keen user of the GPL, or of BSD, or whether you don’t much care about licensing, I hope all my readers are keen that the wishes of authors of software about what happens to it, and the obligations you have if you take advantage of their hard work, are respected. The SFC is a small charity, and corporate donations have suddenly become harder to come by now they are insisting that corporations live up to their responsibilities. (How strange…) I’m proud to say Mozilla has supported SFC in the past, and I hope we will continue to do so. But please would you also consider signing up as a supporter, at the very reasonable cost of US$10 a month.
If people don’t like the terms of the GPL, they are free to write their own software to do whatever they want done. But if they use the hard work of others to save time and effort, they need to respect the wishes of those authors. SFC makes that happen; please give them your support.