Then why is their Policy apparently aimed mainly at the former?
> As should we: we want
> II to succeed because only II is in the position to build out
> the lines of materials we all want.
Really? You could have fooled me. The Unspoken Word, for instance, (and picking them simply as the producers of the first book I grabbed off the shelf) seem to be doing a pretty fine job of it from where I'm sitting.
> I think II is only *secondarily* interested in responding to
> the objections people have raised over the last 12 months.
Like the ones that say "that paragraph is badly worded, to have the effect you want you need to change it"? And draft 2 of the licence they sent me did get it changed.... But after a whole YEAR of pratting about, why hadn't it been fixed long ago?
> I would flip that around: The basic issue is the conflation
> or confusion of (a) the legalistic document necessary to
> counter to predatory pirates that in fact exist with (b) what
> Issaries will actually do in practice.
Possibly because the legalistic attack (on US, remember, as the only visible targets) is all that they're making public?
Sneaking around playing secrets isn't any way to be popular. The FAQ needed to be out *first*, not as an afterthought.
> An oversimplification. You asked for a charter of
> obligations that II underakes to its customers. Yes, I'd
> fire II as my client if they did that in II's position.
Interesting. When I was working for an outsourcing company, we had a charter that spelt out exactly that, in detail. Without it, we'd never have had any customers. Why *shouldn't* obligations go two ways?
> First, I believe that what Jeff is working on will be
> complex. It will just be closer to plain English. I bet it
> will be long and have lots of examples.
Good. And good for him. So why wasn't it produced by Issaries, and out at the same time as the legalistic attack?
> > BTW, can Issaries sell on those rights of theirs (ours)?
>
> They can sell their rights. They cannot sell yours unless
> you give them up (assuming you had some in the first place --
> what, you expected a lawyer to give an unqualified statement?).
And the licences and policy appear to want us to give them up....
Powered by hypermail