> [RW] This whole discussion seems to have degenerated into childishness
> and personal feuds that are unbecoming to all involved. (01)
[ppy] I agree with you that this is absurd, not worthy of this forum,
and a total disgrace.
(I do not agree, though, that there is factual merit on Brand's side,
but that is besides the point.) (02)
Also, this is absolutely not driven by "personal feuds." (03)
I see it as my duty (as host to the Ontolog published online work from
the community) to vigorously protect the IPR of people who have
entrusted their contributions to the <ontolog.cim3.net> collaborative
work environment for the last decade. What Brand Niemann is doing rots
the very core of collaboration, openness and trust, and undermines
this community and its great work. (04)
Therefore, may I request that everyone else takes their discussion on
this matter off-list; the only person we need to hear back from is
Brand. If he has a case, we should hear him out; otherwise he should
make a choice of either complying with our (cc by-sa 3.0) license or
take down the material on his site that was copied from here. (05)
Besides the relevant points made by Leo, myself, Ron and Simon
earlier, I was also prompted offline on the following (which I believe
is also helpful in this case): (06)
ref. http://www.cendi.gov/publications/04-8copyright.html#30
//
3.1 Government Works (07)
3.1.1 What is a U.S. Government work? (08)
A "work of the United States Government," referred to in this document
as a U.S. Government work, is a work prepared by an officer or
employee of the United States Government as part of that person's
official duties. (See 17 USC § 101, Definitions.56) (09)
Contractors, grantees and certain categories of people who work with
the government are not considered government employees for purposes of
copyright. Also not all government publications and government records
are government works (See FAQ Section 1.0, Definitions). (010)
An officer's or employee's official duties are the duties assigned to
the individual as a result of employment. Generally, official duties
would be described in a position description and include other
incidental duties. Official duties do not include work done at a
government officer's or employee's own volition, even if the subject
matter is government work, so long as the work was not required as
part of the individual's official duty. (S.REP. NO. 473, 94th Cong.,
2d Sess. 56-57) (1976) "A government official or employee should not
be prevented from securing copyright in a work written at his own
volition and outside his duties, even though the subject matter
involves his government work or his professional field.") For further
discussion, see Tresansky, John O. Copyright in Government Employee
Authored Works. 57 30 Cath. L. Rev. 605 (1981). (011)
... etc.
// (012)
Additionally, I do not believe Brand Niemann is a government employee,
or working on his website in an official "government employee"
capacity; and that his
"MindTouch:SemanticCommunity.info/AOL_Government/Ontology_Summit_2012_Communique"
website is *not* a US government website. ... Again, Brand, please
correct me if I am wrong. (013)
Regards. =ppy (014)
Peter Yim
Co-convener, ONTOLOG
-- (015)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 8:20 AM
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Summit Website
To: rwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Ontology Summit 2012 discussion <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (016)
I am not sure if that is what Ron is implying ... (017)
As far as I can tell, Brand Niemann's
"MindTouch:SemanticCommunity.info/AOL_Government/Ontology_Summit_2012_Communique"
website is *not* a US government website. (018)
Brand, or anyone from the US government, please correct me if I am wrong. (019)
=ppy
-- (020)
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Arun Majumdar <arun@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I second Ron's email.
>
> -Arun Majumdar,
> CEO, VivoMind Research LLC (021)
> On Apr 21, 2012, at 10:39 AM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
>
>> There is attribution on the site.
>> Is there a better wording that would satisfy most contributors?
>>
>> The share-alike provision may be more difficult to deal with.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Who can give this release?
>> Would that person give the US government the right to publish material from
>the forum?
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> It looks like Brand should take this material down until this written
>permission is obtained.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> I am not a lawyer. This is just my take on the factual issues at stake.
>>
>> Lets keep the forum discussion at a factual level without personal
>characterizations or nastiness.
>>
>>
>> Ron (022)
>> 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
>>> -- (023)
>>> 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 (024)
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Ron Wheeler
<rwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> This is entirely too personal for a post to the forum.
>
> This whole discussion seems to have degenerated into childishness and
> personal feuds that are unbecoming to all involved.
>
> I can see that there is some factual merit on both sides but that seems to
> no longer be the issue.
>
> Is there a wording of an attribution that would put this matter to rest?
>
> Is attribution the only issue?
>
> Lets get this settled and out of my inbox.
>
> Ron (025)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (026)
|