There is attribution on the site.
Is there a better wording that would satisfy most contributors? (01)
The share-alike provision may be more difficult to deal with. (02)
It appears that appearance on the US government site puts material into
the public domain in a license that is more generous than (cc by-sa 3.0).
It appears that this is the reason that the US government wants a
written release from the owner.
The government does not want to have to deal with various rights regimes
and their approach is to deal with it at the source. (03)
Who can give this release?
Would that person give the US government the right to publish material
from the forum? (04)
Once it is on the US site, the IP is really in the public domain.
Would all of the contributors have to agree to the change of IP rights?
The contributors have only agreed to a (cc by-sa 3.0) distribution at
this point. (05)
It looks like Brand should take this material down until this written
permission is obtained. (06)
If permission can not be given and the material is not removed within a
few days, I would think that a written request should be sent to the
government agency sponsoring the web site, outlining the fact that
permission was not given to have the content posted. (07)
I am not a lawyer. This is just my take on the factual issues at stake. (08)
Lets keep the forum discussion at a factual level without personal
characterizations or nastiness. (09)
Ron (010)
On 21/04/2012 9:28 AM, Peter Yim wrote:
> To comply with our (cc by-sa 3.0) license, Brand Niemann will need to
> do "Attribution and Share-Alike" - for details, please refer to
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
>
> =ppy
> --
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 6:10 AM, My Coyne<mcoyne@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I second Debmacp: "Either post the attribution or remove the content."
>>
>> My Coyne
>> mcoyne@xxxxxxxxxx
>> (cel): 301-399-6351
>
>> On Sat 21/04/12 9:05 AM , Debmacp debmacp@xxxxxxxxx sent:
>>> Brand if your objective is to prove you are a brat you have succeeded.
>>> Either post the attribution or remove the content.
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>
>>> On Apr 21, 2012, at 8:23 AM, Peter Yim<peter.yim@
>>> cim3.com> wrote:
>>>> Brand,
>>>>
>>>> As I mentioned in my last response, whatever you
>>> say to Jerry is> irrelevant to the case at hand. Please take that
>>> off this mailing> list.
>>>> Brand Niemann, would you stop creating
>>> distractions and do what you> need to do, and let me repeat that again:
>STOP
>>> YOUR INFRINGEMENT OF> OUR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES RIGHTS !
>>>> =ppy
>>>> --
>
>>>> On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 5:09 AM, Brand Niemann
>>> <bniemann@cox
>>> .net> wrote:>> Jerry, Since you and Peter want to persist
>>> in this, I say: Stop it and>> Apologize.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I also say: Write down what you heard me say
>>> in that DoD meeting (where I>> was ask to present) what you heard me say
>>> before, during, and after the>> meeting, and we can ask the four other
>>> people in attendance what they heard.>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The purpose of the email was to say there
>>> were witnesses to what I said in>> response to you and they were satisfied
>with
>>> my answers.>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards, Brand
>
>>>>> From: jerrylsmit@xxxxxxx [jerrylsmit
>>> @aol.com]>> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 9:41
>>> PM>> To: bniemann@cox
>>> .net; peter.yim@
>>> cim3.com>> Cc: ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Summit
>>> Website>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Brand,
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't recall any such words at
>>> all.>>
>>>>> Kindly explain what you are trying to do
>>> with an email such as this.>>
>>>>> Your statement is untrue.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Brand Niemann<bniemann@cox
>>> .net>>> To: 'Peter Yim'<peter.yim@
>>> cim3.com>; jerrylsmit<jerrylsmit
>>> @aol.com>>> Cc: 'Ontology Summit 2012
>discussion'<ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>> Sent: Fri, Apr 20, 2012 4:36
>pm
>>>>> Subject: RE: [ontology-summit] Summit
>>> Website>>
>>>>> 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 [peter.yim
>>> @gmail.com] 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@cox
>>> .net> 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_201
>>> 2_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/
> (011)
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102 (012)
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)
|