[OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] [OPEN-ILS-DOCUMENTATION] Evergreen documentation

[Lori Bowen Ayre]

Mike,

This makes sense to me.  Everyone who contributes to the project should get
their contributions recognized and when entities outside of the community
pop in and make someone else's hard work look like their contribution, it
hurts the legitimate Evergreen service providers who are participating in
the spirit of open source.

I also agree with Dan that, as a community, it is important that we
discourage (in whatever way is most effective) any entity that does not
respect the copyrights and licenses that are in place.

Lori

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Lori Bowen Ayre //
Library Technology Consultant / The Galecia Group
Oversight Board & Communications Committee / Evergreen
(707) 763-6869 // Lori.Ayre at galecia.com

<Lori.Ayre at galecia.com>Specializing in open source ILS solutions, RFID,
filtering,
workflow optimization, and materials handling
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=



On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Mike Rylander <mrylander at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 6:05 PM, Chris Cormack <chris at bigballofwax.co.nz>
> wrote:
> > On 4 November 2011 10:56, Mike Rylander <mrylander at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Hmm playing devils advocate, do you think they will respect the NC
> >>> clause any more than they respected by BY-SA ?
> >>>
> >>
> >> That's a point that was raised, and I think that the point has merit
> >> -- some that would avoid attributing a BY-SA work won't respect NC --
> >> but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't state our intentions and
> >> desires explicitly.  The analogy that comes to mind is leaving your
> >> front door unlocked and open when you go on vacation.  The door being
> >> open doesn't excuse burglars from coming in and taking your TV, but
> >> you bear some responsibility for not taking common-sense steps to
> >> avoid the theft.
> >>
> > Right, so to be totally clear, the NC is there to explicitly restrict
> > commercial (as fuzzy as that is) use without your prior permission,
> > and the issue is not at all to do with lack of attribution?
> >
>
> Oh, it's not that we don't care about lack of attribution -- I was
> intentionally vague (and will continue to be) about the set of
> situations that prompted this.
>
> But, to answer the more hairy (fuzzy?) part of your question, we would
> rather restrict commercial reuse by those who are not active
> participants within the community -- we see NC (with waivers) as a
> stick (as in, a complement to a carrot) to protect work so that it
> benefits the community primarily.  For example, a waiver of NC to the
> DIG as I mentioned up-thread would cascade through the official
> documentation, of course, but would primarily benefit the community
> before commercial interests.  Or, that is the theory -- we're trying
> to protect ourselves by being unambiguous up front, and to serve the
> community both by working with active participants to make sure the
> resources we produce are useful and available and that the community
> benefits primarily and first.
>
> I hope that makes sense, and doesn't sound completely crazy and off-base.
>
> --
> Mike Rylander
>  | Director of Research and Development
>  | Equinox Software, Inc. / Your Library's Guide to Open Source
>  | phone:  1-877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457)
>  | email:  miker at esilibrary.com
>  | web:  http://www.esilibrary.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://libmail.georgialibraries.org/pipermail/open-ils-general/attachments/20111103/0e6af28d/attachment-0001.htm>