---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 8:11 AM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] IPR issues [was: Predicate Collections
for Semantic Relationships]
To: Ron Wheeler <rwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "[ontolog-forum]"
<ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (01)
Ron and All, (02)
> [RW] Am I missing something. (03)
[ppy] you might have missed a few of key tenets about the Ontolog
community and its collaborative work environment (CWE) ... (04)
(i) that Ontolog advocates "openness" - open collaboration, open
technology, open content, ... with "open" being defined in a manner
that is in line with the "Open Source Definition (OSD)" - ref.
http://opensource.org/osd-annotated (05)
(ii) that we employ our collaborative work environment (CWE) - which
is currently made up of an infrastructure that supports (a) our
archived mailing lists (our conversation workspace), (b) our wiki (our
collaborative authoring and presentation workspace) and (c) our
cloud-based file repositories (our shared-file workspace) - as an
"open" dynamic knowledge repository (DKR - ref.
http://www.dougengelbart.org/about/dkrs.html ) (06)
(iii) that, for more than 12 years, the Ontolog community has
collaboratively built out an open body of knowledge on Ontology and
Semantic Technology (instantiated in our CWE that dubs as the
community's DKR), which is of high quality, low signal-to-noise ratio,
(relatively) free from individuals' or organizations' self-promotions
or commercial- promotions. We do want to keep it that way, and hence,
we requests members of the community to respect the Ontolog members'
Contribution Guidelines and Policy. (07)
(iv) the original vision is that: if a piece of knowledge is on the
Ontolog DKR, it will be fully attributed, version controlled and
traceable, and that one can be sure that it is "open knowledge" ...
and that our CWE becomes the goto place for "open knowledge" relating
to Ontology and Semantic Technology. (... of course, unless it is
explicitly waived - see below!) (08)
(v) that, on occasions, we do provide waivers to the IPR policy (such
as: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2013_06_20#nid3U3C
or http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2011_02_10#nid2MXM
) to allow us to share, say, the latest in commercial deployment of
ontology-based technology (and not just those from the "open
technology" community) ... but these are exceptions and explicit
waivers has to be agreed beforehand. (09)
> [RW] These 2 posts do not seem to have any proprietary information in them
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2014-07/msg00055.html
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2014-07/msg00052.html#nid03 (010)
[ppy] if you read my message again, you will notice that "proprietary
information" wasn't quite the issue I was highlighting when I cited
those. (011)
> [RW] http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2014-07/msg00055.html
> seems to be a response to a specific request for information. (012)
[ppy] true, but then, the poster also took advantage of the situation
and made self- or commercial- promotional remarks on his non-open
product. (013)
> [RW] Lets go for more freedom rather than less in the discussion.
> If people decide that a particular approach depends on a proprietary
> component, it will be clear from the discussion or lack of it. (014)
[ppy] see (v) above. There are plenty of opportunities for commercial
enterprises to promote their wares in the commercial world (where they
belong.) Let's keep our knowledge "open" around here and continue our
pursuit of (iv) above. (015)
Best regards. =ppy
-- (016)
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Ron Wheeler
<rwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Am I missing something.
> These 2 posts do not seem to have any proprietary information in them
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2014-07/msg00055.html
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2014-07/msg00052.html#nid03
>
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2014-07/msg00055.html
> seems to be a response to a specific request for information.
>
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2014-07/msg00050.html
> is too short and superficial to disclose anything that would be considered IP
> As near as I can tell it was only an invitation to go and look at some
>information on another site which may or not disclose anything of value but
>what ever is there is already public.
>
> I am not sure if this is of any value to anyone else but it does not seem to
>be any more "commercial" than many of the other products and approaches
>discussed here.
>
> It is not very helpful to restrict the discussion in the forum to the point
>where one can not discuss work done that has any portion of it that is not
>open.
>
> Most of us are sufficiently experienced to know that if we read something to
>the effect that "this part is open and this part is proprietary", we will be
>able to draw the appropriate distinction and be able to integrate the "free"
>bits into our thinking and perhaps into other open projects if it makes sense.
>
> I am pretty sure that many of the technologies discussed here include some
>proprietary aspects
>
> Lets go for more freedom rather than less in the discussion.
> If people decide that a particular approach depends on a proprietary
> component, it will be clear from the discussion or lack of it.
>
>
> Ron
> --
> Ron Wheeler
> President
> Artifact Software Inc
> email: rwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> skype: ronaldmwheeler
> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102 (017)
> On 13/07/2014 9:12 PM, Peter Yim wrote:
>> Hi Frank,
>>
>>
>> The issues at hand are:
>>
>> 1. your posts ( like:
>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2014-07/msg00050.html &
>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2014-07/msg00055.html )
>> are in breach of the ONTOLOG members' contribution guideline, where it
>> is specifically stated that:
>> //
>> ... unless specifically requested/solicited by other community
>> member(s), please make sure any commercial- or self-promotion material
>> or reference are strictly limited to one's namesake page or a short
>> signature block, and nowhere else as far as our open collaborative
>> work environment is concerned.
>> //
>>
>> 2. while you may use your own definition to interpret "open" when your
>> readers are interacting with you on your IF4IT.COM site, you are
>> expected to use ONTOLOG's definition of "open" or "free" ( please see
>> again:
>http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2014-07/msg00052.html#nid03
>> ) when interacting with other Ontolog members in the Ontolog CWE
>> (collaborative work environment).
>>
>> 3. as previously mentioned, your "Open and Sanctioned Use Policy" is
>> neither "Open" nor "free" technology, nor is that consistent with
>> Ontolog's "open content" policy
>>
>> 4. ... and hence, my advice is that you should consider refraining
>> from posting your work here, les you risk nullifying your own
>> licensing policy (as a principal of IF4IT.com) or breaching the
>> Ontolog Open IPR Policy (as a member of the Ontolog community.)
>>
>> 5. I would also note that "CIM" (the Company I am involved in, which
>> has been donating some of the Ontolog infrastructure and services) has
>> nothing to do with the IPR conversation here. This is all about
>> Ontolog members' Contribution Guidelines and Policy, and the respect
>> for such.
>>
>>
>> Regards. =ppy
>>
>> Peter Yim
>> Member of the ONTOLOG Board of Trustees
>> -- (018)
>> On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Frank Guerino <Frank.Guerino@xxxxxxxxx>
>wrote:
>>> Hi Peter,
>>>
>>> Yes, I do remember our conversations and I’m aware of Ontolog’s posted
>>> policies. Thanks for the reminders and the links. I'll certainly go
>>> through them, again, just to be sure of terms.
>>>
>>> Please know that, like many other participating CIM members, I’m very
>>> careful and go out of my way to “not" post anything that is considered
>>> proprietary to the enterprises I represent or any other organization, for
>>> that matter. And, I recognize that what I do discuss openly, in this or any
>>> other community, is a matter of open conversation. I do my best to be very
>>> careful in separating anything that could be considered legal intellectual
>>> capital from general conversation.
>>>
>>> Also, I’m sure you're fully aware that referenced citations, quotes, and
>>> links to materials and examples which originate and exist offsite and that
>>> are not already original works of CIM do not, by law, constitute original
>>> works of CIM, even if CIM’s documented policies were to state otherwise
>>> (which I don’t believe they do).
>>>
>>> As for the IF4IT's published definition of “open” and how it pertains to
>>> Foundation published open material, in short, “open" means that people and
>>> enterprises can use the material for “themselves" but simply cannot
>>> interpret our brands or our works as their own nor can they directly profit
>>> from them without explicit consent from the IF4IT. We go out of our way to
>>> separate what is “open” from what is “for profit."
>>>
>>> Please know that when I publish links to to things like visual examples, I
>>> know and am very clear on the fact that the visual representation of those
>>> examples are not considered intellectual capital because, by law, no one can
>>> claim “Look and Feel” to be intellectual capital, as per law suits such
>as
>>> Apple vs. Microsoft. And, if people wish to copy such look and feel, I wish
>>> them the best in doing so and I’m even happy to help them do so, when I
>can,
>>> as we publish visualization source code to the open source community via
>>> GitHub (we use d3js.org).
>>>
>>> If there’s any concern or ambiguity, please always feel free to reach out
>>> and ask, as I will always do my best to help. In the mean time, please know
>>> that I truly appreciate the Ontolog community and its members and that I
>>> will share whatever I can (although, I find that there are far smarter
>>> people than me in this community).
>>>
>>> My Best,
>>>
>>> Frank
>>> --
>>> Frank Guerino, Chairman
>>> The International Foundation for Information Technology (IF4IT)
>>> http://www.if4it.com
>>> 1.908.294.5191 (M) (019)
>>> On 7/13/14, 12:21 PM, "Peter Yim" <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello Frank,
>>>
>>>
>>> I believe we had communicated about this before (ref.
>>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-admin/2011-08/msg00002.html and
>>> some of the offline exchange we had around that time) ...
>>>
>>> I just looked through your "Terms of Use"[1] quickly, and can conclude
>>> that your "Open and Sanctioned Use Policy" is neither "Open" (as in
>>> the "Open Source Definition"[2], nor "Free" (as in the "Free Software
>>> Definition[3]"), nor is that consistent with either the OpenContent
>>> License:OPL-1.0[4] or the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA-3.0
>>> (Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0) License[5].
>>>
>>> I assume you are fully aware of the ONTOLOG contribution policy[6],
>>> and by posting about your work and inviting contributions to it here,
>>> you may nullify your own licensing restrictions or, at the least,
>>> breach our Ontolog Open IPR Policy.
>>>
>>> Please, again, review our (Ontolog members') Contribution Guidelines
>>> and Policy[0], and in particular, our Open IPR Policy[6], and ensure
>>> your posts are consistent with them.
>>>
>>> Ref.
>>> [0] http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid3LHV
>>> [1] http://www.if4it.com/LICENSES/master_agreement.html
>>> [2] http://opensource.org/osd-annotated
>>> [3] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
>>> [4] http://opencontent.org/opl.shtml
>>> [5] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
>>> [6] http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid32
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks & regards. =ppy
>>> --
_________________________________________________________________
To Post: mailto:ontolog-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-admin/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/ (020)
|