Peter (01)
I have been around on this list enough to know that call someone
ignorant, is not
to be taken as an offence (02)
In professional circles we prefer to say that someone takes a
different interpretation of the law, and we interpret provocation as
weakness (03)
but I take it that the arguments pointed below are beyond your
immediate sphere of
competence, therefore I cannot expect approprate protocol and language
to be respected (04)
please refer to earlier mails as to my position, and request that
personal issues are taken up off line, and happy to hear any further
clarification that you may want to debate about the OOR, IPR and
related issues, with appropriate tone (05)
I am the one who is waiting for answers about the confusion, cause of
confusion etc, but at this stage have different priorities as for me
this portion of the conversation on IPR (the one regarding to my
claim) is now to be continued with appropriate instruments and
representation, whould the need arise. (06)
pdm (07)
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Pat, Paola & All,
>
>
> Let's separate the two issues ... (1) Ontolog's IPR Policy, and (2)
> Paola DiMaio's IPR issues.
>
>
> (1) Ontolog's IPR Policy:
>
> > [PatC] I recommend that the IPR policy of Ontology be changed to ...
>
> [ppy] Thank you for the suggestions. Under ordinary circumstances, we
> could, and should take your suggestions and seriously consider and
> debate their merit. However I suggest this is not the time.
>
> Ontolog's IPR have been practically unchanged since Sep-2002, and it
> is as sound as ever. Actually, it does protect all of us from
> situations like the one we are seeing. We should not make attempt to
> shift our stand, lest such action may be erroneously be taken as an
> admission of some wrong-doing which no one has done.
>
> > [PatC] I really really don't want to spend any time at all researching
>the
> > meanings of any "open" IPR legalese, and then keeping a record of
>everything
> > that has been said, and searching it everytime I post anything in a public
> > forum, for fear that I might infringe someone's rights.
>
> [ppy] you don't have to (spend time research, keep record of
> everything, ... etc. etc.)
> Anyone and everyone is protected with the current Ontolog IPR policy,
> unless he/she starts plagiarizing ... and that has to be significant
> chunks of text, diagrams, etc. ( ... words, short phrases, don't even
> come into the picture when one talks about copyrights or patents.)
>
>
> (2) Paola DiMaio's IPR issues: ... [ attn: Paola Di Maio (hereinafter
> "Paola") ]
>
> This is more serious ... (because this has disrupted an otherwise very
> civilized environment that we have been working in for more than six
> years.)
>
>
> A. ... because Paola DiMaio has made unsubstantiated accusations here,
> while, at the same time, she seems to be ignorant of the pertinent IPR
> laws, and incapable of reading or comprehending messages that have
> been written by various members of this community (including myself)
> that specifically tried to address her issues.
>
> B. ... I have therefore reduced my findings to two simple substantiated
>claims:
> ref. details at:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/2008-05/msg00025.html#nid02
>
> (i) Paola DiMaio has no copyrights on the label "open ontology"
>
> (ii) Paola DiMaio does have copyrights on the page content at:
>
>http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?action=browse&id=PaolaDiMaio/Towards_OpenOntology&revision=5
> ... but no one (around here) has infringed on it, to date.
>
> C. ... I have also request that Paola should: (i) do her due
> diligence, (ii) consult a legal professional conversant in IPR
> matters, (iii) substantiate her claims, and (iv) then consider talking
> the matter over with me (mainly because I am taking responsibility,
> and I think she thinks I am at fault) on a separate archived mailing
> list ... which, to date, she has not responded. ... Again, we should
> take this conversation off the list, because we are wasting much too
> much time already, of many of my respected colleagues here on her
> unsubstantiated claims.
>
> D. ... I have advised Paola that she has made a statement in an
> earlier wiki post, that actually violates the Ontolog IPR Policy (ref.
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/2008-05/msg00020.html#nid026
> ). Therefore, Paola, please treat this as my third request and
> warning. Kindly remove the said statement within 7 calendar days as of
> the timestamp of this message, or I may remove that entire page (as
> the CWE Administrator) without further notice. [ However,when I do
> that, I will save a snapshot and its version history as future
> evidence. ]
>
> E. ... Paola, since you mentioned you have other work that you are not
> sharing, I would want you to be aware of the fact that anything posted
> on Ontolog, if it does not specify another open source, free software
> or open content license, defaults to Licensing and IPR protection
> under Open Content License (OPL), Version 1.0 (ref.
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid32 ), which
> stipulates that if you had copied any Ontolog "Open Content," your
> work also needs to be Licensed under OPL v1.0 ... therefore, you had
> better review those work to make sure you have not lifted chunks of
> text, diagrams, tables, etc. from the collective body of work here,
> contributed by individual Ontolog members ... because if you had, you
> are infringing on the respective individuals' copyrights. Besides
> making proper attribution, those work of yours actually need to be
> "open" too (under OPL v1.0)! ... Now, my question: Paola, have you
> published or distributed any "non-open" work where Ontolog members'
> work (as they shared it in the Ontolog collaborative work environment)
> have been copied? ... Yes or No?
>
>
> Paola, if you are considering responding to this, please hold off ...
> and just let me know your desire to do C above, I will then start the
> new archived mailing list, and we can talk there.
>
>
> Regards. =ppy
> --
>
>
> On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 1:11 PM, Patrick Cassidy <pat@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Paola and others:
> > I recommend that the IPR policy of Ontology be changed to explicitly
>state
> > that all contributions are placed in the public domain, and can be used by
> > anyone with or without attribution; anyone not agreeing to that policy
> > should not post anything to the forum.
> > I also recommend that a brief statement of that policy be placed on the
> > bottom of every email sent from Ontolog so that no one can claim to be
> > unaware of that policy.
> > I really really don't want to spend any time at all researching the
> > meanings of any "open" IPR legalese, and then keeping a record of
>everything
> > that has been said, and searching it everytime I post anything in a public
> > forum, for fear that I might infringe someone's rights. Good Lord, don't
>we
> > have enough issues to deal with without this? Simplest solutions are
>best.
> > Public domain, please.
> >
> >
> > Pat
> >
> > Patrick Cassidy
> > MICRA, Inc.
> > 908-561-3416
> > cell: 908-565-4053
> > cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
> (08)
--
Paola Di Maio
School of IT
www.mfu.ac.th
********************************************* (09)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2008/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2008
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/ (010)
|