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

Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Continuation of Doug's Colloquium

Paul D. Fernhout wrote January 21, 2003 1:52 PM:
> Peter P. Yim wrote:
> > To bring closure to the IP issues, please work with Doug to issue a
> > statement from Bootstrap Institute saying that the colloquium (and
> > subsequent activity) content IP is now GPL'd -- I trust Doug did allude
> > that already, but he did not say it in so many words. That would suffice
> > the Bootstrap Institute and Stanford University have joint and several
> > rights to the colloquium IP. (OK, Paul?)
> GPL licensing of colloquium materials is great and would solve one of
> the two major issues.
> To tie up all the loose ends though, what I'd like to see is a
> statement from both Stanford and BI that the "extended" activities of
> the colloquium that the "permission to use" applies to are now at a
> formal end as of such and such a date and future activities will not be
> considered as under that agreement. ... [snip] ...    (01)

I would suggest that we do it in a way such that only Doug/Bootstrap
Institute needs to be involved. That is exactly why the original IPR
arrangement was set up so that the Bootstrap Institute and Stanford
University have joint and several rights to the colloquium Intellectual
Property. This way, if Stanford were to give away their courseware or grant
an open license to them (like what MIT is doing), they would not even have
to consult with Doug/BI to do so. The same goes with Doug/BI -- whether he
is using the content for a book, or, again, granting an open license to that
material, Stanford does not need to be consulted.    (02)

The UnRev-II colloquium was an exposition of Doug's vision and concepts, and
a platform for related discourse. In my opinion, software development was
never part of the colloquium agenda. Work on the colloquium transcript,
conversion of the same into a book, or the onelist/egroups/yahoogroups forum
would qualify as "extended activities" of the colloquium. On the other hand,
OHS software design and development shouldn't be, and, to the best of my
knowledge, do not even fall under the colloquium "permission to use"
jurisdiction. And, I am saying this, as the person who put together the
published version of the UnRev-II colloquium "permission to use" statement
and the Bootstrap Institute representative who negotiated the IPR
arrangement with Stanford.    (03)

> But I can promise you this ...    (04)

A very attractive offer indeed, Paul. I shall look forward to a renewed
level of enthusiasm.
--    (05)