I have been following this with interest.
I am not a lawyer but the license is pretty simple.
There is nothing in CC BY-SA 3.0 that talks about software or
licensing for software that is used to host or produce the content
so I assume that this is a distraction to the true objection.
The timing of publication is a bit tricky since the draft was placed
into CC BY-SA 3.0 which is equivalent to publishing it.
If the Brand site has the correct information, it would seem that
the objection over timing is not rectifiable.
If it has outdated information, it should be brought up to date.
This leaves the licensing.
-
Attribution — You must attribute the work in
the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in
any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of
the work).
-
Share Alike — If you alter, transform, or
build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work
only under the same or similar license to this one.
Attribution:
The person using the material has to acknowledge the author in the
way that the author specifies.
I do not see anything on the CIM3 site that describes the requested
attribution..
The "offending" site does acknowledge the source and gives credit to
the authors.
What else is required to remove this irritant?
Sharing:
The "offending site" does not make any mention about what people can
do with the information copied from the CIM3 site.
This seems to be a defect in the use of the material that actually
has some substance.
It would seem that this could be easily fixed by a reference on each
page to the license and by indicating that people can copy the
information off Brand's site as long as they respect CC BY-SA 3.0.
Is this all it takes to meet everyone's objections?
This discussion is a distraction and we should be pleased that the
work of this group is getting a wider audience.
The CIM3 site is very clear that anything that anyone adds to the
site is free for others to use.
Ron
On 20/04/2012 5:12 PM, Peter Yim wrote:
Brand,
Please do not try to create distractions.
What does your telling Jerry Smith in a DoD meeting, or your telling
anyone else at any other setting have to do with the matter at hand?
... If it were a government legal counsel giving an official opinion
on this specific case, it would definitely merit attention. If it were
just your opinion that you had expressed to someone else under some
setting, please spare me; and, kindly try not use to distract the
members of this community, I trust they are in a position to discern.
By the way, I am sure basic decency and respect for others' rights are
within the expectation of any event I or members of the Ontolog
community have a part in co-organizing. Having government agencies
among the co-organizers does not change or put a waiver on those
values and expectations.
Please also note that you took the material from the Ontolog website,
where very clearly stated licensing arrangements have been posted. As
such, you are expected to abide by those copyright/licensing
arrangements.
If you took the same published material, say, from a government agency
website, and if it doesn't specify any restrictions, then you may
safely assume the material is in the public domain. However, the
latter is not the case here.
Therefore, if anyone should apologize, it is my humble opinion that
you should apologize to the authors of the OntologySummit2012
Communique ... even after you had gone ahead comply with the use
license or choose to take the material down.
Regards. =ppy
--
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Brand Niemann <bniemann@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Peter, I just spoke with Jerry Smith in a DoD meeting we were both in and
told him that I am informed that because this was a government-sponsored and
-hosted event your content claims do not have merit and interfere with my
work, so I would ask for an apology. Best regards, Brand
-----Original Message-----
From: peter.yim@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:peter.yim@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Peter
Yim
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 12:09 PM
To: Brand Niemann
Cc: Ontology Summit 2012 discussion
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Summit Website
Brand,
Leo Obrst, our Ontology Summit general chair has already notified you, on
15-Apr-2012, ref.
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/2012-04/msg00081.html
that,
//
Until you have made proper attribution to our work, and clearly state on
your website that your work is also openly shared under OPL v1.0 or (cc
by-sa 3.0), please remove our Summit content from your website.
//
[ while the summit content on the OntologWiki is licensed under OPL
v1.0 or (cc by-sa 3.0), work from the OntologySummit2012 website is
specifically license under (cc by-sa 3.0) ]
To date, you have not been responsive to that request yet, nor have you
taken down the content from your MindTouch : Semanticommunity.info
: AOL Government site.
I can still see our OntologySummit2012 website content, copied word-for-word
on your site, but have yet to see proper attribution, and the site license
from MindTouch, and/or Semanticommunity.info and/or AOL Government stating
that they operates under the (cc by-sa
3.0) open content license.
I personally think that this is very unprofessional of you to use our
material and disregard our IPR. You went ahead and copied the
ontology-summit team's work-in-progress without their consent; and worse,
despite the author's specific request to you to hold off until we publish,
you went ahead and published that on your site even before our team has
released that work and publish it themselves. This is not the kind of
behavior we expect from "trusted members" of the community at all.
PLEASE STOP YOUR INFRINGEMENT.
Thanks & regards. =ppy
Peter Yim
--
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Brand Niemann <bniemann@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Thank you. I looked at your work and think it is similar to what I am
trying to do:
http://semanticommunity.info/AOL_Government/Ontology_Summit_2012_Commu
nique#Ontology
_________________________________________________________________
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/OntologySummit2012/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
|
rwheeler.vcf
Description: Vcard
_________________________________________________________________
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/OntologySummit2012/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (01)
|