[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] Indexes: Main | Date | Thread | Author

Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Licensing of the unrevii email archives

Paul,    (01)

Your reading of "permission to use" is correct, but, I afraid your
interpretation of the intent behind it is somewhat misconstrued.    (02)

While I am in no position to make any statement on behalf of Bootstrap now,
I can, at least, offer some personal perspective on the matter --    (03)

1.  Please note that BI and BA are separate and distinct legal entities. To
me, BI is Doug, and represents his vision which he shared with us at the
colloquium. BA represents an implementation of the type of networked
improvement communities that Doug talked about.    (04)

2.  The indemnification clause was there to protect Doug/BI (and Stanford
too). It's there mainly to keep everyone honest and should not be construed
as a show stopper. To use your analogy, it should, instead, help keep the
playground safe from stray "live" wires.    (05)

3.  I agree with you that the adoption of an open licensing arrangements for
the OHS and/or "unrev" work (and derivative work) should be made and
published as soon as possible. Prior to that being in order, getting BI's
(or Stanford's) grant to use the material would be proper, if one wants to
be perfectly legal about it.    (06)

--    (07)

"Paul Fernhout" wrote Tuesday, April 30, 2002 8:14 PM PDT
> ... [snip] ...
> ... will someone at BI please just get an electrician (lawyer) in and fix
> legal wiring of "permission to use" to strike a better compromise for
> volunteers and get Stanford and BI to sign off on it. If BI can't find a
> lawyer to do the needed paperwork betweeen BI and Stanford pro-bono to
> remove the indemnification and/or clarify and limit what "extended and
> subsequent means", I'll pledge US$300 towards such legal fees, as I
> would like to see the indemnification part removed as showstopper to BI
> OHS development on an open source basis.
> Should your reading of "permission to use" or knowledge of the intent
> behind it differ from the issues I have outlined, please let me know.
> -Paul Fernhout    (08)