|
Grex > Coop13 > #366: Minutes from Grex Board of Directors Meeting, September 26, 2006 | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 12 new of 61 responses total. |
cross
|
|
response 50 of 61:
| 
Oct 29 03:26 UTC 2006 |
Yeah, but flat bottom girls never make 60 year old Sikh men dance to Bhangra.
|
janc
|
|
response 51 of 61:
|
Oct 29 12:08 UTC 2006 |
I should also say that the person who supplied Picospan to Grex, Marcus,
has stated that Grex does have a valid license. Generally, when a
software supplier assures me that I have a valid license, I don't keep
worrying about it, and I don't feel morally obligated to run an
investigation into the supplier's business affairs to ensure that he
really had the right to make such assignments. Marcus says it's OK, and
it's plausible that it is OK. That's good enough for me. If the heirs
of NETI, whoever they may be, ever decide to sue Marcus for improperly
distributing copies of Picospan (I'm sure they could collect as much as
47 cents if they could prove it) then that would be between them and
Marcus. Cyberspace Communications has acted properly.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 52 of 61:
|
Oct 29 12:22 UTC 2006 |
> Generally, when a software supplier assures me that I have a valid
> license, I don't keep worrying about it, and I don't feel morally
> obligated to run an investigation into the supplier's business affairs
> to ensure that he really had the right to make such assignments.
Where I work we have a policy entitled "Vendor/Supplier Due Diligence"
and it includes some of those things.
|
twenex
|
|
response 53 of 61:
|
Oct 29 13:44 UTC 2006 |
Question: When a licensor goes under, who is responsible for enforcing the
terms of the licence?
|
tod
|
|
response 54 of 61:
|
Oct 29 15:32 UTC 2006 |
I think a contract or license on paper is always a good thing to have because
you never know who is going to be around years later to know the facts.
re #53
That would be defined in the license as clauses. The only obligation they
would have is to ensure transfer of the digital materials to the licensee.
Any changes would have to be covered in the license as a clause or
specifically address "authorized users" and "limitations".
|
cross
|
|
response 55 of 61:
|
Oct 29 15:41 UTC 2006 |
I'm really curious if someone could get the code open sourced.
|
twenex
|
|
response 56 of 61:
|
Oct 29 16:39 UTC 2006 |
Re: #54. What I mean is, who is responsible for making sure that the licensee
abides by the terms?
|
tod
|
|
response 57 of 61:
|
Oct 30 04:31 UTC 2006 |
re #56
The licensor of course! If you don't protect your licenses or copyrights then
you risk them going into public domain.
|
twenex
|
|
response 58 of 61:
|
Oct 30 10:38 UTC 2006 |
In other words, if a licensor goes bust and no-one buys the rights to be a
licensor, they DO go into the PD?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 59 of 61:
|
Oct 30 13:46 UTC 2006 |
I would think so. This would be a case where our warped idea of
"intellectual property" has twisted what copyright is. Everything is in
the public domain, only the government grants exclusive rights to the
inventor for a limited period of time. It isn't the inventor that OWNs
the intellectual property, but rather the inventor has a license from
the government saying he/she has exclusive rights to use it.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 60 of 61:
|
Oct 30 21:22 UTC 2006 |
While I agree that's a reasonable interpretation of the Constitution, as a
practical matter, it means little when Disney lobbies for an extension every
time Mickey's about to fall into the public domain.
|
tod
|
|
response 61 of 61:
|
Oct 30 21:31 UTC 2006 |
re #58
If people use the licensed item without dispute for a long enough period then
yes it goes into PD.
re #60
There is a fine distinction with Mickey because he was animated "with sound".
There were mice before him like "Miky Mouse" (which Walt stole outright from
a Jewish toy maker in Ohio) prior to 1923..those would be public domain and
ripe for "any kind of usage". >:)
|