#ubuntu-learning 2009-06-15
<Vantrax> doctormo: you around
<bodhizazen> meeting today ?
<pleia2> yep, sending out reminder as we speak
<bodhizazen> I do not see it on the fridge schedule
<bodhizazen> OK, thanks pleia2
<pleia2> sent!
<pleia2> yeah, no one got it up there
<pleia2> oh no!
<pleia2> The reason it is being held:
<pleia2> Post to moderated list
<pleia2> Vantrax: can you please unmoderate the list?
<pleia2> does anyone else have the list password?
<pleia2> should probably be shared with the board
<pleia2> there, sent to the launchpad list :\
<bodhizazen> =)
<bodhizazen> Vantrax: any progress w/ theme ?
<bodhizazen> I am bringing up a test site still, lol
<bodhizazen> trying to change to port 80
<bodhizazen> learn.bodhizazen.net
<bodhizazen> it is not up yet though
<Vantrax> sorry pleia2
<Vantrax> bodhizazen: I 'think' I have a theme just about ready, its blind coded tho
<Vantrax> I also need that header graphic from doctormo
<bodhizazen> blind coded ?
<bodhizazen> good, then I am almost ready with a new test server >:)
<Vantrax> blind coding means you cant test it to see how it works and looks:P
<Vantrax> im off to work, ill be back on in 30 min
<Vantrax> ello peoples
<bodhizazen> wb
<bodhizazen> lol Vantrax
<Vantrax> ?
<pleia2> Vantrax: oh! is the list completely unmoderated now?
<bodhizazen> Vantrax	blind coding means you cant test it to see how it works and looks:P
<pleia2> well, not *completely* but at least unmoderated for subscribers
<Vantrax> yer, it shoudl be already
<pleia2> ok cool
<Vantrax> also pleia2 and doctormo are mods
<pleia2> ok, want to email the admin password?
<Vantrax> I cant see a way to make it completely unmoderated...
<cprofitt> hello all...
<pleia2> evening cprofitt
<cprofitt> meeting tonight - right?
<pleia2> yep, in about an hour
<cprofitt> k
<cprofitt> I added some items to the agenda
<cprofitt> here or #ubuntu-meeting?
<pleia2> hrm
<pleia2> Vantrax: mind if I poke around the interface some? it's ending emails to the list as from "ubuntu community learning" instead of the real poster
<Vantrax> go for it
<Vantrax> so whatever you want:P
<Vantrax> do
<pleia2> ok, I think I got it sorted
#ubuntu-learning 2009-06-16
<Vantrax> ^.^
<Vantrax> we need to get some momentum going again
<Vantrax> bodhi is it possible to set up sftp on your test server, its just easier as im doing the theme dev from a windows box
 * pleia2 waves to jamesrfla 
<jamesrfla> Hi pleia2
<jamesrfla> so we have a meeting in about 10min?
<cprofitt> Vantrax, what did you think of the courses uploaded? Do we need to make another to guide people on how to make courses?
<pleia2> jamesrfla: yep
<Vantrax> they looked pretty good
<Vantrax> we just need to sort out our structure
<cprofitt> 'our structure'?
<Vantrax> and work out how we want to manage the four programs
<cprofitt> meaning team structure?
<cprofitt> or course structure?
<Vantrax> course
<Vantrax> we need to do team too, that is a focus of this meeting unless im just crazy
<cprofitt> k
<cprofitt> I think courses may have a different structure depending on the 'type'
<Vantrax> very likely
<cprofitt> the method of delivery and the content may require a different pedagogic structure to be successful
<Vantrax> if its a background infromation one, done as self paced it will be very different to something with instructor support
<cprofitt> pleia2, meeting in here or in #ubuntu-meeting?
<pleia2> well, nothing else is going on in #ubuntu-meeting
<cprofitt> Vantrax, it also depends on the depth of the material
<Vantrax> also it seems that moodle doesnt really allow courses to be grouped into programs
<Vantrax> yep
<cprofitt> Vantrax, not sure I follow you on program groupings...
<Vantrax> fair enough
<Vantrax> if you look at the list of topics in the programs pages on the wiki there are alot of suggestions
<Vantrax> many of those group into what i would think of as a course covering similar topics
<Vantrax> the total of the courses under each page would be part of a program with that target
<Vantrax> target being the intention of the program to provide training to a particular target group
<Vantrax> does that make any sense?
<Vantrax> <- baby due in 10 weeks, not sleeping quite right
 * jamesrfla is glad that I am 16 and still a student
<bodhizazen> meeting where ?
<jamesrfla> bodhizazen: #ubutu-meeting
<jamesrfla> I mean #ubuntu-meeting
<thewrath> hey all
<thewrath> im int eh meeting but i have to run to the store
<jamesrfla> okay
<pleia2> I am going to be honest guys, I really don't know enough about this subject to have an informed opinion
<jamesrfla> yeah what is going on in #ubuntu-meeting right now I have no clue what is going on
<pleia2> licensing is a complicated subject
<jamesrfla> I am reading it but my guess is cprofitt and bodhizazen are arguing over some server privacy/property thing
<jamesrfla> also Vantrax
<Vantrax> lol
<Vantrax> its a rather involved discussion we have had for weeks:P
<Vantrax> basically we have source materials that have a non commercial lisence, but the ubuntu community uses cc-by-sa and you cant mix the two
<mogain> Hellow pleia2 and gang
<mogain> This is doctormo, my computer had died
<pleia2> mogain: #ubuntu-meeting
<mogain> This is my netbook ;-(
<pleia2> aww
<Vantrax> ahh
<Vantrax> sorry mo, you missed your licensing discussion, but its going to hit up the mailing list
<mogain> pleia2: Was there a thing about CC yet?
<mogain> ah ok thanks
<Vantrax> no decisions made, bodhi will send out an email to set the tone, and lay some ground rules
<mogain> I would have preferred Vantrax or pleia2 send the email, oh well. ground rules will be about social conduct I have no doubt
<pleia2> I don't know enough about the issue, honestly
<Vantrax> yes:P
<Vantrax> mogain: it will be fine
<Vantrax> we talked about the ground rules in the meeting already
<mogain> sounds ominous
<mogain> I'll have to check out the logs
<Vantrax> okies
<cprofitt> bodhizazen, no offense meant on the license discussion...
<Vantrax> lots to discuss which is good
<bodhizazen> we need more frequent meetings
<Vantrax> bodhizazen: i think we need one in two weeks
<Vantrax> or even same time next week
<bodhizazen> weekly woudl be god for a while
<Vantrax> yeah
<bodhizazen> move to bi-weekly as the structure allows
<bodhizazen> we have a lot to do
<bodhizazen> and a lot to discuss
 * pleia2 nods
<bodhizazen> this is IMO a critical time for the team
<Vantrax> bodhizazen: can you set up sftp on your test server please
<cprofitt> +1 bodhizazen
<bodhizazen> and so I propose frequent meetings
<Vantrax> im doing the theme on a windows box
<bodhizazen> Vantrax: ssh ?
<bodhizazen> what is wrong with scp ?
<pleia2> winscp is lovely
<cprofitt> pleia2, can you be the master of meeting scheduling...
<pleia2> cprofitt: will do!
<Vantrax> ahh, good point
<bodhizazen> with ssh you can winscp if you like
<Vantrax> ill hit up winscp
<Vantrax> ignore me...
<cprofitt> get us scheduled and setup in #ubuntu-meeting and on fridge etc?
<dthacker> winscp is good.
<pleia2> cprofitt: yep
<jamesrfla> winscp is kick ass
<Vantrax> <3 pleia2
<bodhizazen> Vantrax: I will set up server tonight
<bodhizazen> I have to say
<bodhizazen> I have a lot on my plate with managing back end ;)
<pleia2> oh, does someone know where mootbot spits the minutes?
<dthacker> where can we get login info to see courses cprofitt has uploaded?
<bodhizazen> Meeting same time next week ?
<doctormo> What is this windows people keep on going on about?
<Vantrax> we will have to give you some help
<jamesrfla> sorry I was a bit confused in the beginning when you guys were talking about something with a server and who owns what. I was trying to finish up getting a Ubuntu server working with mailman, postfix, and apache2
<Vantrax> dthacker: you can login with openid on learn.ufbt.net
<pleia2> bodhizazen: I'll try to decide by tomorrow, I need to touch base with greg-g about when he's available and hopefully make it easier for -eu people (dougie richardson for instance)
<Vantrax> just use http://launchpad...../~<username> as your string
<Vantrax> pleia2: we might just do them in different times
<Vantrax> so one week is easier for EU, and one week its easier for US
<pleia2> Vantrax: sure, but we want greg-g at this next meeting, and it'd be nice to have a doc person too :)
<Vantrax> yes
<Vantrax> ill poke dougie and rocket too
<pleia2> on the list dougie said 2 hours earlier would be ok
<bodhizazen> OK
<Vantrax> id also like an MOTU there
<pleia2> I think greg-g was simply not around today
<bodhizazen> the other thing we can do -
<bodhizazen> "focus groups"
<Vantrax> since the MOTU used to have a school..
<bodhizazen> ie specific groups to work on specific issues and report back
<Vantrax> bodhizazen: i dont think they are needed as such
<doctormo> I appologise for being so late guys, :-( at least my laptop is now booting afterr some technical fixing.
<pleia2> their classroom sessions are "motu school"
<bodhizazen> Vantrax: I doubt that
<pleia2> doctormo: broken computers :(
<Vantrax> we already had teams outlined for different areas in the strategy document
<Vantrax> i think we need to add testers into that tho
<bodhizazen> we will likely need an "approval" team
<bodhizazen> etc ...
<doctormo> tnwop47Q
 * dthacker needs to track down his openid
<bodhizazen> and down the line
<doctormo> damn keyboard ;-) at least I just spewed my tester password
<pleia2> lol
<bodhizazen> bbl :)
 * dthacker looks away, as all good sysadmin's should
<Vantrax> lol
<Vantrax> what password:P
<doctormo> lol
<Vantrax> brb
<cprofitt> dthacker, I think you can create an account...
<cprofitt> and we can then get you the access to the courses...
<Vantrax> more or less
<Vantrax> cprofitt: does moodle allow proper groups to be created, so rather than having a list of administrators on the course, have just administrators group
<cprofitt> I believe so...
<cprofitt> I think they already have groups...
<cprofitt> admin - instructor - student
<Vantrax> yeah, we need to look into that
<cprofitt> I can try to review the site tonight...
<cprofitt> but I am fairly confident they have groups...
<cprofitt> I think your concern is if we can make groups
<thewrath> wat license did we agree on
<thewrath> sorry iw ent to the store and stopped by the fire hall and didnt think it would take that long
<cprofitt> thewrath, the current license agreed on is CC-BY-SA
<cprofitt> though the issue of discussing it is not over.
<thewrath> so it will not change then cprofitt?
<thewrath> ah
<thewrath> what are the other ones that were in heavy discussion
<cprofitt> CC-BY-SA-NC
<cprofitt> and there are several issues with using NC
<cprofitt> and there is also the issue of 'ownership' of courses authored
<cprofitt> that bodhi brought up
<jamesrfla> well GTG to sleep night all
<cprofitt> back
<doctormo> wb cprofitt
<zhoujingrui> hi
<cprofitt> bodhizazen, you here?
<cprofitt> hey bodhizazen
<bodhizazen> 'lo cprofit
<bodhizazen> the rabbit died :(
<bodhizazen> http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1188782
<cprofitt> bodhizazen, ouch
<cprofitt> hey DougieRichardson
<DougieRichardson> hey cprofitt
#ubuntu-learning 2009-06-17
<cprofitt> you guys seen workswithu.com
<Lns> cprofitt: looks neat
<cprofitt> yeah
<Vantrax> yeah
<Vantrax> they do alot of work with linux
<Vantrax> good point raised, how long are board positions for? We talking the 2 years?
<Vantrax> Thats what the other boards/councils run on (i think)
<cprofitt> we had decided on two years according to my notes Vantrax
<cprofitt> every LTS release is what is says here
<Vantrax> sounds good
<Vantrax> nice to see you keep good notes:P
<cprofitt> the meeting logs should be there... they had been on the wiki, but I can not find them currently
<cprofitt> I think the page redesign may have 'lost' them
<cprofitt> pleia2, had them posted
<cprofitt> pleia2, Vantrax bodhizazen dinda can we discuss licensing
<pleia2> yup
<Vantrax> there seems to have been some confusion
 * dthacker thinks Vantrax is a master of understatement :)
<Vantrax> Im trying to get hold of dinda, but from my understanding they use the NC license because they do not want people making money of the work they create for the community. For example the Desktop Training course.
<Vantrax> However we can use whatever licensing works for us for the project. We cannot relicense the Desktop Training materials
<cprofitt> I can understand that Vantrax
<cprofitt> I was concerned with some thinking that they wanted us to be NC on our works
<Vantrax> im trying to clarify, but my understanding is they do not have a problem with us using BY-SA
<Vantrax> I can see the appeal in BY-SA-NC tho
<cprofitt> in my conversations with greg-g NC is difficult to enforce
<cprofitt> and a bit murky
<cprofitt> I also do not think we need to prohibit people from making money off of the course we produce...
 * dthacker tries to find the thumbnail guide on the CC site
<bodhizazen> go for it, it is not as if I am having a converstion elsewhere :)
<Vantrax> I dont think we need to enforce
<cprofitt> and would not want a private university to be restricted in using the courses
<cprofitt> bodhizazen, lol... me either
<cprofitt> I thought you had wrapped that up...
<cprofitt> sorry for jumping the gun
<bodhizazen> np, don't wait for me if everyone is here
<cprofitt> dinda, is not
<dthacker> to NC or not to NC is the question, correct?
<pleia2> yep
<Vantrax> funny bit is, NC is seen differently in different countries too
<Vantrax> in Australia for example education is not considered commercial, even private education.
<Vantrax> As long as they recive some government funding for teaching
<Vantrax> so a private training business would not qualify
<Vantrax> You realise we could make it NC with exceptions for Schools, Collages, and Universities.
<Vantrax> you can do that
<bodhizazen> Well, I think there is another issue
<Vantrax> yer?
<bodhizazen> and that is with branding ?
<Vantrax> sure, whats the issue?
<bodhizazen> we have called ourselves teh UCLP
<bodhizazen> and the U part means we have to coordinate with Canonical =)
<cprofitt> Vantrax, I am not sure if we can make exceptions or not
<Vantrax> yes
<bodhizazen> or drop the U
<cprofitt> bodhizazen, Vantrax says that Canonical has not required us to use NC
<dthacker> bodhizazen: how does that affect our use of NC in the license?
<Vantrax> bodhizazen: technically the U means we coordinate with the Community Council, in the same way as Ubuntu Forums
<cprofitt> they just will not relicense their courseware
<bodhizazen> up to now it has been a goal to maintain the U so we probably should not make a unilateral decision ;P
<cprofitt> bodhizazen, on that I agree...
<dthacker> bodhizazen: +1
<cprofitt> but there appears to be a difference in our opinion on what Canonical has asked of us
<Vantrax> im quite happy to write an email asking for clarification from billy
<cprofitt> Vantrax and I are of the opinion that they will allow our courses to be CC-BY-SA
<cprofitt> but will not relicense their courses
<bodhizazen> yes, so I think it would help to clarify both our position and contact with Canonical
<cprofitt> I would like that contact to happen in an email including the entire board...
<Vantrax> im reasonably sure that dinda has said so, but I will endevour to clarify
<cprofitt> for transparency sake
<Vantrax> i was going to cc the mailing list
<bodhizazen> and I am not sure, but I do not think the CC gives permission to use the Ubuntu "brand", I could be wrong of course
<Vantrax> we kinda need a board list, and a board lp team as the owner of the team lp team
<Vantrax> I as and individual shouldnt own it
<Vantrax> thats my opinion anyway
<cprofitt> I agree Vantrax
<cprofitt> not sure if LP works that way though...
<Vantrax> it does, you can have LP teams own teams
<Vantrax> the regional councils are owned by the community council for an example
<Vantrax> I think our board LP team should be as well
<pleia2> sounds good
<cprofitt> we should do that then...
<Vantrax> puts us in line with the standards
<dthacker> seems reasonable
<cprofitt> but that means you or someone will own the 'board' team
<Vantrax> the CC would in my mind
<Vantrax> taking it out of our responcibility
<cprofitt> ah....
<cprofitt> that would be a possibility...
<Vantrax> opinons on that?
<cprofitt> one the current board would like have to agree with...
<Vantrax> yes
<pleia2> I don't think the CC owning it would be appropriate
<Vantrax> i would require that one to be voting on it
<bodhizazen> +1 pleia2
<dthacker> I think it's a good way to go.  Community owns the board.  board oversees project
<Vantrax> er be vote on
<Vantrax> <- isnt sleeping much atm
<bodhizazen> Well is that how wiki team works ?
<cprofitt> does the CC own the boards of other 'projects'?
<pleia2> most projects in Ubuntu are fine without direct CC oversight, CC doesn't *want* oversight on everything
<pleia2> cprofitt: not really
<bodhizazen> I am not sure the CC owns many teams directly
<cprofitt> something to be discussed I guess...
 * dthacker listens for pleia2 and bodhizazen's views
<Vantrax> fair enough
<Vantrax> pleia2 would know:P
<Vantrax> shes higher up the food chain
<pleia2> they own the membership boards
<pleia2> sec, let me get link
<cprofitt> we have another issue we need to discuss...
<Vantrax> so, we shelve that idea, but ill create a UCLP Board Team
<pleia2> https://launchpad.net/~communitycouncil/+participation
<cprofitt> ownership of the courses themselves...
<Vantrax> We seek clarification on NC with exceptions?
<cprofitt> bodhizazen, has raised the point that he wants courses to be owned by the 'project'
<Vantrax> or just leave it as not caring?
<pleia2> regional boards, loco council, irc council, other Members
<pleia2> but no "project" teams
<Vantrax> ok, we leave that out then IMO
<dthacker> ok cc doesn't own board.
<Vantrax> if its ok ill create the board group unless there is an objection?
<cprofitt> though I think that may not be necessary given his reasons for wanting ownership
<pleia2> Vantrax: +1
<cprofitt> we need clarification on the NC part Vantrax
<cprofitt> create it Vantrax
<Vantrax> ok ill see what I can find out
<cprofitt> and then make the current board members +admin or whatever...
<Vantrax> Ill talk to one of the law professors here at the uni
<cprofitt> then we can transfer the ownership of the base team to the board group
<pleia2> did we ever figure out how the wiki was licensed ownership-wise?
<cprofitt> Vantrax, about ownership?
<pleia2> or anything-wise
<bodhizazen> I am wondering the same thing
<bodhizazen> why are we re-creating the license issue ?
<cprofitt> http://www.ubuntu.com/legal
<bodhizazen> surely this has come up before ?
<bodhizazen> with wiki ? forums ?
<cprofitt> I think it is clear that the wiki content is owned by the author
<bodhizazen> is there a community standard ?
<bodhizazen> and if so, should we not follow it ?
<Vantrax> yes, if there is
<dthacker> kubuntu wiki is in public domain
<Vantrax> but from what mako was saying it seems like wiki hasnt even discussed it
<bodhizazen> cprofitt: how does the wiki define author ?
<cprofitt> as that is where the wiki 'legal' link takes us
<bodhizazen> many pages are worked on by many people
<Vantrax> that is the issue cprofitt
<cprofitt> I would think a wiki author is rather odd since multiple people can be an author
<Vantrax> you might create a course, then I can go edit it and improve it, then bodhi can. Who says you own it
<cprofitt> but there is a history so the author of each part could be determined
<Vantrax> in moodle too?
<cprofitt> Vantrax, given what I know about CC (which is minimal) each would own their derivative
<bodhizazen> i do not think that is what it says cprofitt
<bodhizazen> quote - the author in the case of content produced elsewhere and reproduced here with permissio
<dthacker> This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work even for commercial reasons, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical terms.
<bodhizazen> next statemetn
<bodhizazen> or Canonical or its content suppliers
<bodhizazen> so the content is either owned by Canonical
<dthacker> tha's the by-sa license
<bodhizazen> or if content is reproduced with permission it belongs to the author
<cprofitt> well if Canonical and Ubuntu do not have specific legal language concerning the ownership or status of wiki content then the author would have the copyright by US law
<dthacker> so I'm leaning towards' cprofitt's interpretation
<bodhizazen> Furthermore they say
<bodhizazen> You are welcome to display on your computer, download and print pages from this website provided the content is only used for personal, educational and non-commercial use.
<bodhizazen> which is what I would bet most of us would agree to for our project
<cprofitt> I would prefer to still allow commercial uses...
<cprofitt> for multiple reasons.
<bodhizazen> so why not use the same license on our site ?
<cprofitt> but would like to have a clarification from Canonical
<bodhizazen> I prefer NC
<Vantrax> ahh, educational use is fine under NC?
<bodhizazen> If someone wants to use it for commercial purposes we can discuss a donation for server and bandwidth
<cprofitt> well... if we license with NC then Canonical could not use our material
<Vantrax> I think we should look at NC with waivers granted
<Vantrax> cprofitt: we can still allow canonical to use it
<cprofitt> Vantrax -- is New Horizons educational or commercial?
<bodhizazen> It does not say that here http://www.ubuntu.com/legal
<Vantrax> we own the content and can relicense
<dthacker> by-nc-sa:This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical terms.
<cprofitt> Vantrax, that would be up to the author who holds ownership
<bodhizazen> +1 Vantrax
<bodhizazen> no cprofitt
<dthacker> I would say educational falls under that
<Vantrax> which is the point in making the ownership held by the project
<bodhizazen> only if we publish content with permission from an author
<cprofitt> is New Horizons commercial or Educational
<Vantrax> so the project board can allow exceptions as needed
<Vantrax> linky new horizons
<bodhizazen> Let me quote again -
<dthacker> for profit educational
<bodhizazen> The website HTML, text, images audio, video, software or other content that is made available on this website are the property of someone
<cprofitt> bodhizazen, so we would ask that authors relinquish ownership of their content?
<bodhizazen> the author in the case of content produced elsewhere and reproduced here with permission
<bodhizazen> absolutely cprofitt
<cprofitt> bodhizazen, I do not need to be re-read the lingo
<dthacker> if you use nc, you don't need permission
<dthacker> just attribution
<cprofitt> I differ in my interpretation of what it means
<bodhizazen> next ilne
<bodhizazen> or Canonical or its content suppliers
<Vantrax> we can specificy our interpretation of NC as part of the CC statement you know
<cprofitt> the language there may or may not apply to the wiki
<Vantrax> and provide exceptions
<bodhizazen> Cannonical owns it unless the content is reproduced with permission
<bodhizazen> +1 Vantrax
<bodhizazen> I see no reason we can not claim ownership bu the UCLP, unless content is published with permission
<cprofitt> the legal link is on www.ubuntu.com
<cprofitt>  not wiki.ubuntu.com
<bodhizazen> and I see no reason we can not allow Canonical to use the material, at least that has been our intent
<dthacker> and I'll point again to the kubuntu wiki being classified as "in the public domain" in 2006
<bodhizazen> why is the location of  the link important cprofitt ?
<cprofitt> first: if UCLP owns it... it can grant permission to Canonical assuming the CC allows waivers and exceptions
<bodhizazen> we can recycle 90% , with permission
<bodhizazen> and
<bodhizazen> s/Canonical/UCLP/g
<Vantrax> ill say it again, the Wiki team never decided or even looked at the legal side
<bodhizazen> and make and exception for Canonial
<Vantrax> mako noted that when we went to CC and said they would have to look into it
<cprofitt> second: you would have to have some language or an agreement with authors to remove their ownership of the content they produce
<bodhizazen> I think we are asking for trouble and headaches if we (UCLP) do not own the content
<cprofitt> Canonical is on VERY weak ground if they claim ownership of community wiki content
<bodhizazen> course 1 is NC, canonical not allowed
<cprofitt> as they do not have anyone sign an agreement
<bodhizazen> course 2 is canonical only
<bodhizazen> course 3 is ....
<bodhizazen> and author 2 wants ...
<bodhizazen> author 3 wants
<bodhizazen> etc
<dthacker> maybe my understanding is imperfect, but if I create content and license it using nc.  I only own my exact versions.
<dthacker> changes to my versions, properly attributed, belong to the next author.
<bodhizazen> cprofitt: none of this has been tested in court =)
<bodhizazen> or very little
<dthacker> so why worry about ownership?
<cprofitt> https://help.launchpad.net/Legal
<cprofitt> bodhizazen, actually some of 'this' has been tested in court
<bodhizazen> dthacker: first contenet needs to be managed
<bodhizazen> some yes cprofitt
<cprofitt> dthacker, you are correct
<cprofitt> an author can not without an agreement with a publisher relinquish his/her rights to their product
<cprofitt> at least in the US
<cprofitt> that is why most forums have some form of legal agreement about having license to USE posted content
<cprofitt> they do not claim ownership though
<Vantrax> ok board is now an administrator
<pleia2> thanks Vantrax
<bodhizazen> That is not the only reason they do not claim ownership cprofitt
<dthacker> nothing in the launchad link about nc
<cprofitt> I am sure there are many bodhizazen what are the ones you are aware of
<bodhizazen> IMO the main reason they do not claim ownership is they are nor reviewing and approving the content
<cprofitt> dthacker, exactly... the wiki for Lauchpad is just CC-BY
<bodhizazen> Take the UF
<bodhizazen> how many thousands of posts are there ?
<cprofitt> does canonical review wiki articles?
<bodhizazen> UG can not be responsible for the content of all those posts
<bodhizazen> Most forms do not want that responsibility
<dthacker> bodhizazen: ownership and control are 2 different issues.   I can write a deficient tutorial.  I own it, but there is no need for UCLP mod's to accept it.
<bodhizazen> wiki and UCLP are different in that respect
<Vantrax> and your all in the team now
<bodhizazen> our content is moderated
<cprofitt> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DocumentationTeam/License?action=show&redirect=DocteamLicense
<bodhizazen> I understand that dthacker , lol
<dthacker> so why have to own it all?
<cprofitt> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DocumentationTeam/License
<bodhizazen> I am saying if we publish content we need to :
<bodhizazen> 1. own it
<cprofitt> There is no reason that I can think of for UCLP to 'own' the product of the authors
<bodhizazen> unless we are reporducing content in which case
<bodhizazen> 2. we need permission
<pleia2> cprofitt: +1
<dthacker> IMO, we need to approve published content, not own it
<cprofitt> Unless the UCLP wants to pay me I would want to OWN my product
<pleia2> I'm with dthacker on this one
<cprofitt> and through publishing my work as CC-BY-SA they are allowed to use it
<bodhizazen> It may be my understanding that is off then :)
<cprofitt> just as coders contribute code under GPL - they still own any code they originate from my understanding
<Vantrax> if we want to use NC we would need to have the rights assigned to relicence it and to allow waivers to the licence for approved educational areas
<cprofitt> Vantrax, hence why I prefer to not use NC
<Vantrax> they own it, but cannot control it
<Vantrax> under GPL
<pleia2> ultimately I really think we should follow the DocTeam lead and keep NC out of it
<cprofitt> Vantrax, I agree
<bodhizazen> From this page
<bodhizazen> http://www.ubuntu.com/legal
<cprofitt> but they can stop making it GPL in the future...
<dthacker> I own code in tikiwiki, (very little),  but the relaese manager decides if it goes out the door .
<bodhizazen>  Home Legalese      *        Terms and conditions associated with use of this web site, and the Ubuntu distribution.  Copyright  The website HTML, text, images audio, video, software or other content that is made available on this website are the property of someone - the author in the case of content produced elsewhere and reproduced here with permission, or
<Vantrax> I can see the benefit of both honestly
<cprofitt> see Zen after Cytrix bought it...
<cprofitt> or VirtualBox after SUN bought it
<bodhizazen> or Canonical or its content suppliers. Before you use this content in some way please take care to ensure that you have the relevant rights and permissions from the copyright holder.
<dthacker> pleia2: a belated +1
<cprofitt> bodhizazen, why do you keep reposting that...
<pleia2> when we discuss things with dinda, we can bring the DocTeam's license in as an example of an officialish resource that is not NC
<bodhizazen> Tell me why we do not want our lega page to read similar ?
<bodhizazen> cprofitt: ^^
<Vantrax> I am with bodhi on that one
<cprofitt> I would prefer our legal page to actually be clear.
<dthacker> because we're not canonical, we're a community project, not a commercial one.
<cprofitt> the one you keep posting is not clear
<bodhizazen> simply change Canonical to UCL ?
<Vantrax> clear means big argument and headaches:P
<bodhizazen> UCLP ?
<cprofitt> and we are NOT a for profit organization
<Vantrax> yes
<Vantrax> that is trye
<Vantrax> true
<cprofitt> we are looking at www.ubuntu.com and wiki.ubuntu.com
<cprofitt> and it is unclear if the legal statement on www applies to wiki
<Vantrax> i do not like the idea of a university using our material and bandwith tho, it is going to be expensive for bodhi if that happens
<cprofitt> it is also impossible to determine which content on the wiki was produced elsewhere
<cprofitt> their wording is 'poor'
<Vantrax> at least not without saying something
<cprofitt> and if their lawyer was here I would tell him so
<cprofitt> might be wrong, but
<cprofitt> Vantrax, using our bandwidth is a different issue
<cprofitt> we are mixing issues
<pleia2> cprofitt: +1
<Vantrax> yeah
<Vantrax> your right
<dthacker> Vantrax, yes we may have to have connection rules or bandwidth rules, but they could use content on their own moodle sever
<dthacker> server
<cprofitt> Moodle courses are portable
<cprofitt> as I proved by uploading the ones I did.
<Vantrax> indeed
<dthacker> \o/ portability
<bodhizazen> what is wrong with this then cprofitt
<bodhizazen> http://paste.ubuntu.com/197435/
<Vantrax> i am reasonably fine with the CC-BY-SA license, but I do have a few conserns which are the same ones that dinda had
<bodhizazen> We really do not need to use the CC-BY-SA, that is not the only option
<Vantrax> true
<Vantrax> other options?
<bodhizazen> http://paste.ubuntu.com/197435/
<cprofitt> bodhizazen, so in the case of a course I author given what you posted - I would be the copyright holder
<bodhizazen> which is very similar to what others use :)
<dthacker> I'd prefer not to wander into the land of exotic licenses
<bodhizazen> not at all cprofitt
<cprofitt> I disagree bodhizazen
<bodhizazen> you would hold the copyright if you authored material
<bodhizazen> which we then wanted to reproduce
<cprofitt> since my course would be produced elsewhere
<bodhizazen> and we asked your permission
<bodhizazen> and you gave it to us
<cprofitt> and I would grant you rights to use it by publishing it CC-BY-SA
<cprofitt> but I would still own it
<bodhizazen> In that case, it it were published elsewhere, that would be correct
<dthacker> agrees with cproffit
<Vantrax> afk a few
<bodhizazen> it would not be correct if it were published on the UCLP
<cprofitt> your legal did not make any claim about published bodhizazen
<cprofitt> so you are incorrect in your assertion
<bodhizazen> it can be changed cprofitt , now I think you are being difficult :)
<dthacker> bodhizaen: the act of publishing a course is not enough for the UCLP to claim ownership, they would need to make change to it.
<cprofitt> an author of a book (unpublished) would not lose their copyright if a publishing house published it based on a manuscript they sent in
<bodhizazen> I disagree dthacker
<dthacker> it's in the CC by SA license
<cprofitt> you can disagree bodhizazen but I think legal folks will disagree
<bodhizazen> How is it then that on this page
<cprofitt> I can ask the copyright and patent lawyers my mother-in-law works for.
<pleia2> yeah, copyright (in the US anyway) is automatically granted
<bodhizazen> http://www.ubuntu.com/legal
<cprofitt> we have seen that already bodhizazen
<bodhizazen> Canonical claims copyright then ?
<cprofitt> which is why any wiki content I am the author of is my copyright not Canonical's
<cprofitt> since I produced it elsewhere
<bodhizazen> Or are you saying that they are not claiming copyright
<cprofitt> and by posting it I granted them permission to use it
<cprofitt> their language is such they would have a hard time removing my copyright
<cprofitt> that may have been their intent, but they would likely fail in the US at least
<bodhizazen> I think you are switching horses in the middle of the river and bing difficult =)
<bodhizazen> not all content on th eUCLP will be authored elsewhere
<bodhizazen> some will come from wiki
<jldugger> is there actually anyone in favor of NC?
<bodhizazen> so we need permission
<bodhizazen> some may come from forms
<bodhizazen> so again we need permission
<cprofitt> bodhizazen, I am not for repacking the content that is already posted elsewhere
<cprofitt> I would simply point people at it...
<bodhizazen> some , for example questions, may come from us, the UCLP
<cprofitt> that should be effective in avoiding the legal issues
<bodhizazen> in the case of the latter, the UCLP owns the content
<dthacker> bodhizazen: if you need to use something verbatim, you cite the source and go on.  Fair use.
<bodhizazen> Well, that is why you need to be more specific whey you say ownership or copy righted
<bodhizazen> dthacker: I am not debating that
<cprofitt> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/legalcode
<bodhizazen> why are you posting that cprofitt ?
<cprofitt> http://www.copyrightaid.co.uk/forum/topic27.htm
<dthacker> bodhizazen: ownership is a charged word.  CC-BY-SA specifically says I own my content.  Others use of my content never affects my ownership. That is why the license is useful.
<cprofitt> informational for the discussion
<cprofitt> +1 dthacker
<cprofitt> In short my understanding is that while you are the copyright owner, by posting on the forum you have already given the site owner permission to use your work.
<cprofitt> that was in the discussion
<bodhizazen> I do not think I used that word once here : http://paste.ubuntu.com/197435/
<bodhizazen> nope, no ownership used there
<cprofitt> http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum44/2201.htm
<bodhizazen> why are we discussing CC-BY-* if no other group in Ubuntu uses it ?
<cprofitt> bodhizazen, you are correct you did not ...
<pwnguin> it doesn't use the word ownership, but it does assert that ULCP owns something
<pwnguin> which a) ULCP is not a legal entity
<pwnguin> b) requires transfer of copyright, since there are no works for hire
<cprofitt> bodhizazen, we are discussion CC-BY-* because it is a way for authors to produce work and allow it to be shared while protecting their work
<dthacker> cprofitt: +1
<cprofitt> it is, to my knowledge, the best license for the type of work we are discussing
<pwnguin> honestly, a straw poll seems like it would be effective in determining what is truly being debated here
<dthacker> and the most likely to attract authors
<bodhizazen> Well I think we are off topic is we are the only group in the Ubutnu community to use this license :)
<cprofitt> general copyright statement meant to limit liability or assert ownership on a website would not be a good method
<dthacker> "we're special"
<cprofitt> we are the only group?
<pwnguin> the wiki?
<bodhizazen> what does the wiki use ?
<dthacker> public domain
<bodhizazen> forums ?
<bodhizazen> MOTU ?
<dthacker> unknown
<cprofitt> bodhi did you read the link I posted to the Launchpad wiki?
<pwnguin> motu uses DFSG
<bodhizazen> Launchpad ?
<dthacker> launchpad uses cc-by-sa
<pwnguin> and cc-by-sa i believe is dfsg
<pwnguin> depending onthe version
<pwnguin> because yes, the fine print matters
<cprofitt> https://help.launchpad.net/Legal
<cprofitt> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DocumentationTeam/License?action=show&redirect=DocteamLicense
<cprofitt> that is the wiki doc team content
<cprofitt> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DocumentationTeam/License
<dthacker> that's 2
<cprofitt> dthacker, launchpad uses different CC licenses according to that page
<bodhizazen> You keep giving me links that specify who owns something or who has the copy right
<cprofitt> You asked who uses CC I thought bodhizazen
<bodhizazen> and then tell me we do not want to do that :)
<bodhizazen> So again ...
<bodhizazen> The documentation contained in the Launchpad Help wiki, the Launchpad Development wiki, and on the Launchpad blog is owned by Canonical Ltd and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
<cprofitt> I want to use CC-BY-SA
<pwnguin> bodhizazen: i'd call them acceptable terms of contribution
<bodhizazen> why do we not want the same thing ?
<dthacker> false logic: licensing != ownership
<pwnguin> ie, you can own a document and contribute it to ubuntu onder cc-by-sa
<cprofitt> bodhizazen, that is fine... but as pwnguin has pointed out UCLP != Canonical
<bodhizazen> The documentation contained in the UCLP is owned by the UCLP and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
<cprofitt> in the case of courses the author would OWN the work and they would publish it under CC-BY-SA
<bodhizazen> That is the same wording as LP
<bodhizazen> changing Canonical to UCLP
<cprofitt> great.
<pwnguin> if the wiki asserts ownership of content, thats a little wierd and you should ask make for cliarficiation
<cprofitt> I am not sure if UCLP can own something as it has no legal standing or substance
<pwnguin> mako
<cprofitt> I prefer to have the authors OWN the work and publish it via CC-BY-SA
<bodhizazen> That is a poor argurement cprofitt :)
<cprofitt> the wiki asserts ownership only if the content was not produced elsewhee pwnguin
<bodhizazen> we an either ask to be owned by Canonical or we can draft a LLC
<pwnguin> bodhizazen: there's no way you'll be able to incorporate ULCP
<dthacker> if i publish it with CC-by-sa then I will own it
<cprofitt> so likely an author would OWN their work
<pwnguin> cprofitt: i see a (c) canonical 2008
<cprofitt> bodhizazen, my argument is no more poor than yours
<bodhizazen> OK, well with that I think we have made as much progress as can be expected for a day :)
<dthacker> incorporating UCLP adds no value
<pwnguin> you'd at least be able to assign copyright ownership to UCLP
<pwnguin> since the ubuntu foundation is a facade
<cprofitt> pwnguin, https://help.launchpad.net/Legal/ProjectLicensing
<pwnguin> but i have yet to see a case made for transfer of ownership
<pwnguin> cprofitt: those are the terms for using launchpad for free. what of it?
<dthacker> you know, I think the best we can to is make the material we publish accurate, helpful, and available for others to improve.
<dthacker> control of "ownership" is not necessary for that
<cprofitt> to be honest I really see no value in breaking down Canonical's poor legal wording on their website as we should be concerned with how we want to license our product
<pwnguin> to be clear
 * pwnguin prefers courseware be licensed under cc-by-sa. 
<cprofitt> pwnguin, I think the language there indicates that not all content on launchpad is 'OWNED' by Canonical
<pwnguin> cprofitt: not really, but it's irrelevant as you point out
 * dthacker prefers cc-by-sa, but could live with nc
<cprofitt> if Canonical claimed ownership of all things on Launchpad there would be no need to tell people how to license their project
<cprofitt> I prefer CC-BY-SA
<cprofitt> if Canonical requires us to use NC to get the Ubuntu word in our name I would consider it
<pwnguin> i would consider that newsworthy
<cprofitt> I would not consider asking authors to grant Canonical or UCLP (assuming it had a legal form) 'ownership'
<cprofitt> I can see requiring them to use CC-BY-SA, but not turning over ownership
<Vantrax> ok lets can this arguement because we are going round in circles. Not much point in NC because we couldnt enforce it. We cant legally own copyright because we are not a legal entity
<cprofitt> at least based on what I know as of now
<cprofitt> Vantrax, +1
<cprofitt> I hope bodhi comes back...
<pwnguin> i think this argument is going in circles because a key player isn't present in negotiations
<Vantrax> We can rewrite anything ourselves that is that valueable and doesnt have a compatable license
<cprofitt> he is the one pushing hard for NC
<pwnguin> is he?
<Vantrax> I know why he is too
<cprofitt> he is or he believes that Canonical is asking us too...
<cprofitt> please share Vantrax
<Vantrax> but it creates an ever expanding problem if we do
<Vantrax> we then have to have permission to relicense and make exemptions to the -nc part of the license
<Vantrax> that will be very difficult to sell
<cprofitt> http://mailman.uwc.ac.za/pipermail/nextgen-online/2006-May/010993.html
<Vantrax> we also cannot enforce it
<cprofitt> Vantrax, we would not have permission to relicense just because we use NC
<cprofitt> if we have ownership we do...
<Vantrax> that was the issue
<cprofitt> but using BY-SA would not require relicensing
<Vantrax> we would have to have permission, in writing, or ownership
<pwnguin> cprofitt: all i meant was that there's this vague and awkward copyright canonical; if there's an intended assertion to ownership of contributions it seems contrary to public perception and actions undertaken
<Vantrax> that is its biggest attraction
<cprofitt> authors publishing under BY-SA would automatically be granting UCLP the right to use it
<Vantrax> yes
<cprofitt> pwnguin, I agree
<Vantrax> not that we would need it because its BY-SA
<Vantrax> keeping a list of contributors to a course would become a problem
<Vantrax> you have to attribute the original author, and every other person that worked on it
<cprofitt> at present I think we need to clarify Canonical's actual request or stance on the issue
<cprofitt> Vantrax, correct
<Vantrax> yes, but im assuming im right on that
<pwnguin> attribution is mandatory, essentially
<cprofitt> it should not be hard to track that...
<pwnguin> no getting around that; we have tools for this, however i dont know how well moodle hadles them
<cprofitt> pwnguin, have you looked at the three courses I uploaded
<pwnguin> not yet
<pwnguin> honestly, its been busy at work lately with the new semester
<pwnguin> and the recent conflict about -nc seems disconcerting
<pwnguin> you'd think the moodle instance would be in the topic
 * dthacker needs to get some work done. Later all.
<cprofitt> pwnguin, yes... it is a hang up...
<cprofitt> we had decided on a license, but the issue has come back up
<cprofitt> and I doubt we can move forward until it is resolved
<cprofitt> and it appears to have the possibility of destroying the effort
<pwnguin> i dont understand it; -nc is pretty much discriminatory against field of endevor and clearly non-free
<cprofitt> which is why we must be willing to listen and address people's concerns
<cprofitt> -NC for me is not compatible with Free Software as Stallman would have it
<cprofitt> but I do understand the desire by some to use the license
<cprofitt> two of the courses I uploaded are NC
<pwnguin> its silly; you can find entire courses on MINIX under more liberal licenses
<Vantrax> I think CC-BY-SA assuming no Canonical issues.
<Vantrax> we need to have a proper board meeting with billy and belinda and resolve it
<pwnguin> the shadow board
<cprofitt> http://learn.ufbt.net/mod/resource/view.php?id=29
<cprofitt> that is the license for the third course
<cprofitt> I guess it is possible to license each course individually, but I would not want to do that
<cprofitt> because of the complexity of managing that
<pwnguin> i can understand a few high profile exceptions
<pwnguin> even debian compromises
<cprofitt> a few would be ok...
<pleia2> agreed
<pwnguin> but i think it's vanity to assume projects on UCLP are going to be so high profile that people will seek them out and "steal" them
<cprofitt> multiples in the hundreds would be a nightmare
<cprofitt> pwnguin, I agree
<cprofitt> I also think allowing a training company to download and host our courses while charging for the training is acceptable
<pwnguin> god
<pwnguin> it cant be worse than the status quo
<cprofitt> lol
<pwnguin> http://jldugger.livejournal.com/19709.html
<pleia2> pwnguin: honestly I suspect the reason the ubuntu wiki folks havent put a ton of thought into it is because they feel the same - not worth arguing over, and who will really steal it all anyway? will we actually go after them legally?
<dthacker> pwnguin: ewwwwww
<cprofitt> pleia2, I agree...
<cprofitt> how do you guys feel about author ownership -- is that ok or is there some need for UCLP to find a way to own the content?
<pleia2> it's ok, I see no reason for UCLP to own the content
<pwnguin> i thought the linux kernel settled the whole copyright assignment debate
<cprofitt> lol
<cprofitt> I have no clue about the Kernel
<cprofitt> maybe it was the colonel though, heh?
<dthacker> we don't need to own the content.
<pwnguin> the kernel is owned in aggregate
<dthacker> we meaning UCLP
<pwnguin> in contrast with the FSF, which requires copyright assignment for serious contributions
<cprofitt> dthacker, I got ya
<cprofitt> I need to get to sleep -- it is late and this discussion has taken most of my free time today
<cprofitt> ...
<cprofitt> sorry that it took up your time as well... but we need to navigate the waters with caution
<cprofitt> for fear of destroying the team
<Guest_> hello
<Nestor> Hey, im trying to put ubuntu on a laptop that is not mine. I dont wanna mess w anything on its hard drive i just wanna use the computer per se. I have an external hard drive. Is there a possible way to boot ubuntu from the hard drive without probs?
<cprofitt> hello all
<cprofitt> pleia2, has dinda been in at all today?
<pleia2> cprofitt: she joined the channel this morning, but I haven't seen her talk anywhere today
<cprofitt> ok... thanks.
<cprofitt> what about doc?
<pleia2> nope
<bodhizazen> I think we should put licensing discussion on the back burner for the moment
<bodhizazen> the wiki is operating without such a thing
<bodhizazen> and ask for advice from outside this group
<bodhizazen> we can decide to discuss this with the CC and or dinda ?
<bodhizazen> or whoever we wish
<bodhizazen> I also think we need to look at what the rest of the community does
<bodhizazen> The other option would be to hire a lawyer to draft something for us
<bodhizazen> I would consider covering the cost of that last option
<dinda> cprofitt: I'm here for about 20 minutes
<cprofitt> dinda - on licensing
<cprofitt> Is Canonical ok with us using CC-BY-SA or would they prefer NC?
<dinda> cprofitt: ack - I can speak for myself not Canonical, would have to run it by the lawyers if the CC-SA only were used
<cprofitt> ok...
<cprofitt> Bodhi was concerned and we wanted to clarify that.
<cprofitt> I know the stuff you produce - that we may point people to as a resource - is NC
<dinda> i * think* the why this material is different is b/c we have somewhat competing training materials
<cprofitt> With the exception that we will never 'certify' someone...
<dinda> the desktop course was Canonical's first attempt at producing community developed materials
<pleia2> yeah, the difference is what is tripping us up I think, the DocTeam uses all CC-BY-SA so I was hoping we could just follow their lead
<dinda> pleia2: yip, except there is no Canonical commercial equivalant to the DocTeam materials
 * pleia2 nods
<dinda> let me go ahead and pass it by our legal. . .
<cprofitt> that would be fantastic dinda
<pleia2> thanks :)
<cprofitt> I appreciate it
<dinda> afaik sabdfl or no one else on the CC has any issues with the license you folks want to choose
<cprofitt> dinda, we just want to make sure... no sense in getting started and having an issue down the road
<cprofitt> we do not wish to bite the hand that is 'feeding' us
<dinda> it's b/c I know our agreements with training partners has some exclusivity clauses in regards to materials that I can see some potential conflicts
<cprofitt> but we also would like the product to be as 'F'ree as possible while encouraging the adoption of Ubuntu
<cprofitt> with our produced courses or in our potentially 'using' Canonical's products?
<dinda> they (training partners) might be able to complain b/c we point folks to "free" resources on the same site we are trying to get folks to look at their offerings
<cprofitt> got it...
 * dinda goes to review the training partner agreement quickly
<cprofitt> but what if the training partners were able to use our courses?
<cprofitt> If we go NC they would not be able too...
<cprofitt> The course material is only one part...
<cprofitt> providing a lab and a live instructor is another
<cprofitt> There may be a win-win for the training providers if we keep building and improving the courseware
<cprofitt> and they can use it in their commercial training
<cprofitt> just to 'flip' the coin on it...
<cprofitt> does that make any sense?
<dinda> what is the official name of this project again?
<cprofitt> pleia2, dinda - did I lose you guys?
<cprofitt> Ubuntu Community Learning Project
<dinda> cprofitt: training partners can't use your materials, they can only use Canonical materials
<cprofitt> dinda, because of the agreement with Canonical?
<dinda> cprofitt: correct
<cprofitt> ok...
<pleia2> cprofitt: no, I don't really have any input until we understand the legal implications WRT canonical
<cprofitt> hmm... I see some 'ways' around that, but we would have to talk to legal... and I do not know the structure in place currently
<cprofitt> I understand where the logjam could be better now though...
<cprofitt> I assume Canonical currently 'sells' the training to the partners
<dinda> and personally I don't have any issues with the license but in my view as a potential community contributor I'd prefer my work here not be used by anyone for commercial purposes. . .inlcuding canonical
<pwnguin> how about a statement from the board along the lines of "it is the intention of the UCLP to adopt CC-BY-SA by default materials", and ask Canonical legal for approval?
<cprofitt> dinda, the concern I have is the 'definition' of commerical....
<cprofitt> is a College commercial if it is a private institution?
<dinda> with Docs it's a bit easier b/c all that is integrated and while I suppose someone could take all the system docs and charge for it, don't think it would sell
<cprofitt> Is a college like Bryant and Stratton - which is a career ed college that charges per the course and only has associates degrees commercial
<dinda> cprofitt: a college is a commercial regardless of non-profit status b/c they are selling the materials by way of charging tuition
<cprofitt> dinda, that is what I thought...
<cprofitt> others were trying to say that they are not...
<pwnguin> dinda: this ties your hands you know. if a team of say ten people update some courseware to reflect new releases of software, you now need ten sign offs to profit from your own work + theirs
<cprofitt> State Schools may be non-commercial as are K-12s that are public
<cprofitt> I was really hoping to have 'schools' be able to use the material... as I feel they are they key turning the worm
<pwnguin> dinda: generally, and ive spoken to lawyers in a "I am not your lawyer" status about Creative Commons, a college is designated non-commercial
<dinda> the NC was a way to try to appease our corporate folks that we weren't giving the course materials away. . .though I've been advocating conceding the desktop course to the community and changing the license
<pwnguin> presumably, there's some international problems regarding NC
<pwnguin> canonical is not incorporated in the US
<dinda> with my Canonical hat on:  I'm concerned that training partners will be upset if they realize we are hosting or in this case pointing to the community site, yet in our agreements with them we kind of tie their hands
<dinda> pwnguin: yes we are
<pwnguin> oh?
<dinda> pwnguin: there is a Canonical USA
<pwnguin> interesting
<dinda> Canonical Ltd in the UK and also incorporated in the Isle of Man
<dinda> Canonical has subsidiaries in several countries now including Taiwan and the US
<cprofitt> dinda, I would like to suggest that the courseware be free... but the exam and ability to 'certify' people be '$$$'
<cprofitt> but as I do not know the business arrangement with the partners it is hard to know how that fits the business model that Canonical has in regards to training
<dinda> so i'm drafting an email to our legal team right now to get their opinion and to make sure there are no legal objections to Canonical pointing the community site and our paid partners
<cprofitt> dinda, I do appreciate that...
<cprofitt> I have a greater perspective on this now...
<cprofitt> I certainly want to make it fit.
<cprofitt> pwnguin, in regards to schools I would not think that all Universities / Colleges are non-commercial
 * dinda puts on her community hat:  the CC-by-SA seems to work fine for docs and I'm personally "ok" working on such a project knowing full well my contribution has no protection from those who want to reuse for comercial purposes
<pwnguin> cprofitt: probably, devry and so on ar enot
<cprofitt> some maybe, but I am not sure how the difference between a training company and a college would be defined
<pwnguin> cprofitt: incorporation status
<cprofitt> State operated learning institutions would likely be, but private... that would get murky
<dinda> cprofitt: inthe states it gets even trickier b/c of accrediation issues with educational institutions. . .
 * cprofitt shakes his head
<cprofitt> lawyers...
<pwnguin> then again, it's just one lawyer's suggestion, with no particular credentials other than working for a college and attending a copyright session
<dinda> cprofitt: for example we were told in Texas, the training companies have to abide by certain rules and can't offer courses to individuals, only to companies b/c of non-compete issues with shcools
 * cprofitt sigh
<dinda> cprofitt: yeah, and it all seemed so simple!  ;)
<cprofitt> pwnguin, yeah we have had three different interpretations on 'fair use' in regards to K-12
<dinda> cprofitt: don't worry, it will get simpler again once we get the lawyers ok - promise
<cprofitt> dinda, I am not worried...
<cprofitt> it just means we have to go slow... which many of us knew to being with
<cprofitt> a few wanted to move at warp speed, but that is just not possible
<dinda> cprofitt: ok email sent to lawyers
 * cprofitt smiles
<cprofitt> thank you very much dinda
<dinda> cprofitt: np
 * dinda waves as I head off to a baseball game
<cprofitt> good luck dinda
<bodhizazen> thanks dinda :)
#ubuntu-learning 2009-06-18
<greg-g> o/
<cprofitt> hey greg-g
<cprofitt> thanks for stopping in
<cprofitt> We have some questions concerning CC and ownership
<cprofitt> pleia2, bodhizazen
<greg-g> ready when you are
<pleia2> oh
<pleia2> or we can do it now :)
<pleia2> hehe
<cprofitt> First item...
<cprofitt> is there a way for the UCLP to 'own' the copyright (CC) on the product of a course author?
<cprofitt> and in your opinion is such ownership, if possible, necessary and/or desirable?
<greg-g> yes, you can have all contributors sign/agree to (check box is fine) to assigning their copyright to the project, similar to how FSF does with code contributions
<greg-g> well, as long as they all agree to having their contributions licensed as CC:BY-SA then you can do what you want with it, as long as you include their name in an AUTHORS file or similar
<cprofitt> does UCLP have to be a legal entity?
<greg-g> it might
<greg-g> I am not a lawyer and all that
<cprofitt> ah... I thought you were...
<greg-g> but, wikipedia (which is a good example for such a project) just has the contributors agree to licensing their contributions as CC:BY-SA
<bodhizazen> :)
<cprofitt> Well... I am under the impression that if an author licenses under CC:BY-SA they still OWN the work
<cprofitt> where as if UCLP 'owns' the work the author would not license it under CC:BY-SA
<cprofitt> but UCLP would...
<bodhizazen> I would prefer if we did that
<cprofitt> thus the author would not be give attribution unless the UCLP wanted to do so
<bodhizazen> have all contributors sign/agree to (check box is fine) to assigning their copyright to the project
<cprofitt> it would not legally be required
<bodhizazen> it woudl make things a whole lot easier
<greg-g> cprofitt: correct, they still "own" their work, but it is licensed as BY-SA so you can do what you want with it (excluding re-licensing it)
<cprofitt> I understand that...
<cprofitt> but if they transfer ownership, which some would like them to do, ...
<greg-g> then you can do whatever you want with it
<greg-g> :)
<cprofitt> then they are no longer the licensor - and they would not legally have to be given attribution if logic follows
<greg-g> correct, you would just have attribution be "UCLP" or whatever
<cprofitt> so we would be asking them to give up their 'rights' to their work
<cprofitt> ok...
<greg-g> correct.
<cprofitt> that is what I thought
<cprofitt> so... were you joking about not being a lawyer... or do I still really need to seek out a copyright lawyer
<greg-g> these are good questions, btw. I like this.
<bodhizazen> correct what , lol =)
<greg-g> bodhizazen: correct to "21:02 <  cprofitt> so we would be asking them to give up their 'rights' to their work"
<greg-g> :)
<bodhizazen> thanks
<bodhizazen> I am advocating the UCLP as that from contributing authors
<greg-g> I'm not a lawyer, and you don't _need_ to get legal counsel, but if you want you can. I can give you my personal opinion though
<cprofitt> if they do CC:BY-SA they would not be able to revoke our right to use the content or would they?
<greg-g> cprofitt: nope, they can't revoke the license
<pleia2> I think that's plenty then
<cprofitt> that is also what I thought
<greg-g> s/nope/correct/ #for clarity
<pleia2> no need to "own" it
<cprofitt> so we really have no need to 'own' it
<cprofitt> and that makes the question of the UCLP needing to become a 'legal entity' unnecessary
 * pleia2 nods
<cprofitt> now...
<cprofitt> for using NC or not using NC...
<cprofitt> You had related some reservations on using NC...
<cprofitt> can you cover those again for the benefit of bodhizazen, pleia2 and myself
<greg-g> correct, you don't. Other than to make attribution easier. Which could be done with a simple check box also (I acknowledge that attribution for this material will be "UCLP" and not my individual name")
<bodhizazen> wait, are we going to use such a check box ?
<greg-g> sure, simple answer is: It creates confusiong on how others can use your work and it is not considered a "Free" (Big F) license.
<cprofitt> bodhizazen, we may use a checkbox, but only for an agreement that they are publishing their work CC:BY**
<greg-g> bodhizazen: I'm just giving more suggestions than you all are asking for :)
<bodhizazen> why would we not ask them to assign copyrights over to the UCLP ?
<pleia2> bodhizazen: for one, we're not a legal entity (might have to be)
<cprofitt> bodhizazen, because there is NO need to do so
<pleia2> I really don't see the benefits of it, and see contributors being reluctant to sign over copyright
<greg-g> bodhizazen: some people don't like that idea and what pleia2 just said (because I don't know the legal answer to that question)
<bodhizazen> OK, then if we do not do that we need to make dam sure we have the rights to use the content if we choose if said author "demands" we remove content =)
<cprofitt> bodhizazen, if they publish on our site and agree (via check box) to publish their work via CC:BY-SA we would have those rights
<pleia2> bodhizazen: greg-g confirmed that they can't revoke the CC:BY-SA license
<bodhizazen> what happens if author foo asks for his or her name to be removed from the UCLP and all of foo's contributions as well ?
<pleia2> they can't
<cprofitt> I asked the can they force us to remove it and greg-g said they can not do so
<pleia2> it's already CC:BY-SA
<cprofitt> which is how I understand GPL and CC to work
<bodhizazen> Well, I am not wanting to pay the legal defense if the UCLP is sued =)
<greg-g> bodhizazen: they can ask, and you can choose to comply or not, as they have already released their contributions under a CC:BY*** license.
<cprofitt> the items you published as CC or GPL can not be removed from that license
<greg-g> right ^^
<bodhizazen> And i am concerned as I own the server
<bodhizazen> so I do not want to be left on the ship when the $h*t hits the fan and the rats leave =)
<pleia2> ownership doesn't help, it causes us to have more legal responsibilities and work and we may lose contributors
<greg-g> well, you would be considered a "service provider" under the DMCA and all you would have to do is remove the "infringing" content if they were _actually_ going to take you to court (which if they did, they would lose)
<bodhizazen> I am not talking ownership =)
<cprofitt> as for legal defense... regardless of what a person did or not...
<bodhizazen> I am talking copyright
 * cprofitt sigh
<greg-g> bodhizazen: right, see my last comment about the DMCA
<cprofitt> they would be publishing under CC:BY-SA
<bodhizazen> thank you
<greg-g> np
<cprofitt> that would be the copyright...
<bodhizazen> so, what you are saying is they could threaten a law suit
<greg-g> but they would be wrong
<cprofitt> ownership of that copyright would be theirs
<pleia2> anyone can threaten anything
<bodhizazen> and we would then need to decide to
<bodhizazen> 1. remove content
<bodhizazen> 2,. mount a defense
<cprofitt> which they could do even if they 'assigned' ownership
<pleia2> you risk this by putting anything online ever, anyone can accuse you of anything
<greg-g> bodhizazen: a "defense" would include suggesting to them they ask for legal advice, then a lawyer will tell them they have no case
<bodhizazen> yes, but even if we win we still need to defend
<cprofitt> if you really want to protect yourself you should 503c UCLP
<bodhizazen> That may be a very good idea cprofitt ;)
<pleia2> it's really not
<cprofitt> regardless of how we ask them to copyright or assign ownership a person can dispute things...
<bodhizazen> I understand that
<cprofitt> the only way to legally protect yourself is to setup a corporation of some sort
<cprofitt> and have that bear the burden
<bodhizazen> but I see asking them to assign copyright to teh UCLP as productive
<cprofitt> it would pay the bills for the server, domain name and bandwidth etc
<bodhizazen> it seems many successful projects do that
<cprofitt> assigning of copyright is assigning of ownership
<pleia2> cprofitt: if we incorporated we couldn't use the Ubuntu name, or domain
<bodhizazen> is that not what the wiki does ?
<cprofitt> and affords no legal protection from frivolous lawsuits
<bodhizazen> no pleia2
<cprofitt> pleia2, incorrect
<bodhizazen> the UCLP corporation can call itself anything it wants =)
<cprofitt> bodhi could incorporate but not use the ubuntu name
<pleia2> Canonical allows usage of the Ubuntu name by other corporations?
<cprofitt> and then the corporation can be the entity providing the resources to UCLP
<cprofitt> its a legal slip knot
<bodhizazen> It could be called bodhi's insuracne that he does not loose his shirt LLC =)
<pleia2> ah
<cprofitt> they do not allow other corps to use it... but bodhi would not be the entity donating the resources
<bodhizazen> It is easy to form a LLC
<cprofitt> its creating a shadow company...
<bodhizazen> I do not understand why we, the UCLP is doing something different from say wiki team
<bodhizazen> from my understanding Canonical claims copyright on materials published on the wiki =)
<bodhizazen> so why do we not want to do the same ?
<bodhizazen> It has not stopped the wiki from being a success
<cprofitt> bodhizazen, I think you are incorrect
<cprofitt> they make several exceptions
<bodhizazen> link cprofitt ?
<bodhizazen> we can make similar exceptions, no ?
<cprofitt> 1)  We have no link to a copyright that directly makes a claim about the wiki directly
<bodhizazen> The make exceptions for content that is published elsewhere
<cprofitt> the information we have is on www not wiki
<bodhizazen> perhaps we should wait for an opinion from legal ie dinda :)
<cprofitt> greg-g, do you have any input on how canonical licenses user contributed content on the wiki?
<cprofitt> the legal from dinda only has to do with the inclusion of NC or not
<cprofitt> not the assignment of ownership
<greg-g> cprofitt: lemme double check on thing...
<bodhizazen> I would also point out, as the server's owner, I think it is fair I ask to be comfortable with the copyright agreement :)
<cprofitt> thanks
<bodhizazen> Unless others wish to contribute and assume what I perceive as risk =)
<cprofitt> bodhizazen, I would agree... but as a potential author I would say we also do not want an environment that stifles author contributions by unnecessarily asks them to relinquish their rights
<cprofitt> asking
<bodhizazen> I do not see that as stifling =)
<greg-g> cprofitt: so, wiki.u.c only says "Â© 2008 Canonical Ltd." which I'm not sure is even correct. I don't remember saying anything when I signed up for a wiki account about assigning my contributions to Canonical.
<bodhizazen> wikipedia has similar agreements and is not stifled
<cprofitt> wikipedia?
<greg-g> bodhizazen: similar agreements to what?
<bodhizazen> greg-g	yes, you can have all contributors sign/agree to (check box is fine) to assigning their copyright to the project, similar to how FSF does with code contributions
<cprofitt> greg-g, that is what I thought... Canonical has not asked me to sign any agreement to relinquish my ownership
<bodhizazen> what is wrong with that ^^
<bodhizazen> if it is good enough for FSF it is good enough for me
<greg-g> bodhizazen: that isn't what Wikipedia does (to the best of my knowledge)
<bodhizazen> FSF then =)
<greg-g> heh, ok
<cprofitt> publishing under CC:BY-SA-NC and asking them to give up ownership is much further than the FSF would ever go
<greg-g> cprofitt: right, I should ping dinda about that
<cprofitt> the FSF would never force NC
<bodhizazen> but greg-g informed us that is exactly what the FSF does
<cprofitt> the FSF does not publish under NC
<cprofitt> they allow commercial use
<cprofitt> Stallman would kill them if they prohibited commercial use
<bodhizazen> they ask people to sign away copyright +)
<cprofitt> that they do...
<bodhizazen> which is what we are discussing
<cprofitt> but they do NOT publish under NC
<bodhizazen> the NC is a separate issue
<cprofitt> there are other reasons that FSF asks for ownership, to my knowledge, and we have none of them
<bodhizazen> and one we are waiting on to hear from on
<cprofitt> bodhizazen, for me the two issues are not sep.
<cprofitt> I would not sign over my rights to an organization that was going to publish under a restrictive license
<cprofitt> so for me the two are linked
<greg-g> the reason the FSF asks for ownership is so they can relicense under a newer version of the GPL when they are released
<bodhizazen> Well, as I do not know where we are going with NC as of yet
<bodhizazen> what can I say ?
<cprofitt> and they take on defense as well if I am not mistaken greg-g
<bodhizazen> The reason I want to take on ownership is because I do not want to be involved in a lawsuit =)
<cprofitt> which they could not do if they were not the owner
<greg-g> cprofitt: yeah, and that too
<cprofitt> which is the reverse of why the FSF does bodhizazen
<cprofitt> they WANT to defend GPL license code
<cprofitt> they do not want to avoid a legal fight
<bodhizazen> yea, well our goal / reasons for wanting copyright differ =)
<cprofitt> your seeking to avoid a legal issue is not solved by the assignment of ownership
<bodhizazen> I am not looking for "solved"
<bodhizazen> there is no such thing
<cprofitt> so asking for it is disingenuous or misguides based on what I know
<bodhizazen> I am looking for as good as it can be =)
<bodhizazen> I do not want the headaches of having an author demand we remove content
<cprofitt> good as it can be for you is CC:BY-* with the author retaining ownership of the copyright
<bodhizazen> and we then have to remove content because we do not have copyrights
<cprofitt> them transferring it to UCLP or a shadow LLC does not mitigate the risk of a legal battle any further
<cprofitt> sigh
<greg-g> I don't want to sound like I'm giving legal advice, but asking for copyright assignment actually does increase your liability for the content. Simply hosting the content is protected under the DMCA (as long as you respond to a take down notice if it is valid). AND, any contribution will be licensed under a CC:BY-SA license so the whole issue is kinda moot.
<bodhizazen> I understand that even if we have the copy right it does not stop someone , but it makes their case that much more difficult
<cprofitt> they can dispute the copyright assignment and make the same demands
<cprofitt> both demands would be equally baseless
<bodhizazen> thanks greg-g :)
<cprofitt> bodhizazen, it makes their case no more difficult...
<bodhizazen> do you have a link ?
<cprofitt> their cases are equally faulty
<bodhizazen> in whose opinion cprofitt ?
<greg-g> bodhizazen: me or cprofitt ? and a link to what?
<bodhizazen> your greg
<cprofitt> bodhizazen, in my opinion
<greg-g> If the work is licensed under a CC license (sans NC) you can host it on your site. Period.
<cprofitt> while it is only my opinion... I would encourage you to seek legal advice if you feel the need
<bodhizazen> Well, therein lies a potential problem
<bodhizazen> we may or may not need to go -NC
<pleia2> greg-g: to confirm I understand correctly - if I write a course that ends up on UCLP and UCLP requires me to transfer ownership and make it NC, that means I can't sell it to some linux magazine later, since I wrote off all my rights to my work?
<bodhizazen> we are waiting for a legal opinion
<greg-g> the only reason I say sans NC is because NC create ambiguity with what the definition of "commericial" is.
<bodhizazen> and once we get an opinion we will need to discuss it
<cprofitt> I would think that before pushing for a potentially odorous assignment of license that you would want to ensure your opinion, which is no more or less valid than mine, is accurate
<cprofitt> we have not asked for legal opinion on ownership
<pleia2> er, I meant copyright
<greg-g> pleia2: wrong actually. CC license are non-exclusive. You can release it under a CC:BY-NC-SA on UCLP and as CC:BY on your own blog.
<bodhizazen> cprofitt: you are going in circles =)
<pleia2> greg-g: ah ok
<bodhizazen> We asked a legal opinion on -NC
<cprofitt> bodhizazen, I am not going in circles... though you might perceive it as such
<cprofitt> I can try to clarify
<greg-g> pleia2: as long as you release it on your blog before you transfer ownership, that is. :)
<bodhizazen> which will impact ownership
<cprofitt> yes we asked for legal opinion on NC
<pleia2> greg-g: hm, troublesome!
<cprofitt> you are pushing for ownership
<cprofitt> which I feel there is no need for
<greg-g> ownership transfer is generally a "no no" Only when you are working for a company do they really ask you to do that.
<cprofitt> I would ask that before we pursue a course that asks people to relinquish their rights that we verify that there is an actual benefit to the project for doing so
<pleia2> cprofitt: +1
<cprofitt> you have used references to other projects that do that... but you do not have the same reasons...
<bodhizazen> well your feelings on the issue do not invalidate the feelings of others, or mine =)
<cprofitt> your reason is for your own legal protection
<cprofitt> and that may or may not have any benefit from copyright ownership
<bodhizazen> Well that is a reality if it is my server =)
<cprofitt> if you do not gain any benefit then there is no reason to pursue it
<cprofitt> unless you have other reasons you have not shared with us
<bodhizazen> now if the UCLP would like to purchase a VPS ....
<cprofitt> you are free to withdraw your donation of resources from the UCLP if you feel you must
<bodhizazen> I am not trying to be difficult here
<cprofitt> but the UCLP does not have to do as you say just because you contributed them to the project
<bodhizazen> but I am trying to understand and be comfortable with these decisions
<bodhizazen> and you can not claim to have an unbiased opinion either cprofitt +)
<cprofitt> I would like to make sure you feel you are properly protected, but at the same time not push requirements that do not add to that legal protection
<bodhizazen> I would like to see this issue discussed more
<cprofitt> that may also impact the willingness of others to contribute
<cprofitt> we can discuss it.
<cprofitt> I I hope you are open to the thoughts and opinions of the group
<bodhizazen> that is not such a great arguement cprofitt
<cprofitt> and in a manner that does not carry an implied threat of taking your ball and going home
<bodhizazen> the UCLP needs to make a decision on these issues and I am sure we will have disagreements
<cprofitt> if the assignment of copyright aids in protecting you and your family I would have no issue with it.
<bodhizazen> and we are waiting for an opinion from Canonical
<bodhizazen> which may either make the discussion moot
<bodhizazen> or complicate it =)
<cprofitt> if it does not have any value to such protection then I would not be for it for the reasons you have expressed
<cprofitt> we are waiting for an opinion from Canonical on NC
<bodhizazen> And if canonnoical required -NC
<cprofitt> their desire for its use or not
<bodhizazen> what then ?
<cprofitt> if Canonical requires NC that makes your desire for transfer of ownership more troublesome in my opinion
<bodhizazen> Are you then going to pull out of the project because you do not get the license you want ?
<bodhizazen> what about others ?
* pleia2 changed the topic of #ubuntu-learning to: Ubuntu Community Learning Project | https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Learning | Next Meeting: Monday June 22nd @ 7pm EDT (23:00 UTC June 22nd) | Support in #ubuntu
<bodhizazen> Well you are entitled to your opinion
<cprofitt> it is my opinion that such ownership is not necessary for your protection from legal action, but for your benefit that should be examined
<bodhizazen> and I am entitled to mine =)
<cprofitt> are you going to pull out because you do not get the one you want?
<cprofitt> I have expressed an opinion about which license I feel is best...
<cprofitt> not the one I want
<cprofitt> despite your accusation that I have some hidden interest - I do not have a personal interest.
<bodhizazen> there are many who have a strong opinion on this issue
<cprofitt> there may be...
<cprofitt> but let me ask you bluntly...
<bodhizazen> thus the issue needs to be reviewed and discussed
<pleia2> bodhizazen: I won't pull out of the project if we require NC and ownership, but I will not contribute my own work to the courses because it's very unfree and I'm uncomfortable with that
<cprofitt> if you were to receive legal council that a transfer of copyright ownership had no value in protecting you from litigation over an author agreeing to CC:BY-* would you agree to not pursue copyright ownership for UCLP?
<bodhizazen> That
<bodhizazen> and I want to see some structure in place for how to resolve potential conflicts on content
<cprofitt> if you were to receive legal council that a transfer of copyright ownership had no value in protecting you from litigation over an author agreeing to CC:BY-* would you agree to not pursue copyright ownership for UCLP?
<bodhizazen> developed by the UCLP
<cprofitt> we have a structure -- though it needs to be stronger
<cprofitt> we have a board currently
<bodhizazen> that and we need to have some structure
<cprofitt> it may not be as strong as you like, but we do have a structure
<bodhizazen> Well, there has been sharp disagreement even on the governing board on this issue
<cprofitt> I would like an answer to the question
<cprofitt> boards can have disagreements
<bodhizazen> To be honest I am not sure what will happen if we are requested to go -NC
<cprofitt> what about the transfer of ownership question bodhizazen
<cprofitt> if you gain no additional legal protection would you still push for it?
<cprofitt> if there are other reasons I would like to be able to consider those
<bodhizazen> My interests, as the owner of the server, are to divorce myself from as many legal hassles as possible =)
<bodhizazen> That is not the same as saying I am unwilling to assume some risk
<cprofitt> I understand that...
<bodhizazen> or that I am pulling the server =)
<bodhizazen> My interests as a UCLP member are to see these issues resolved amicably
<cprofitt> to be clear though if transferring of ownership afford you no more protection from risk than the author publishing under CC:BY-* would you still push for a transfer of ownership
<cprofitt> I want you to be protected...
<cprofitt> and we have a different understanding of what protects you so that needs to be resolved via legal advice - not from Canonical
<bodhizazen> I think not cprofitt , however ...
<bodhizazen> I do not think I understand what will happen if we are requested to go -NC
<cprofitt> what is your question in that regard?
<bodhizazen> Well there will be a problem
<cprofitt> I am still under the opinion that if we are asked to use NC that ownership would not help you...
<bodhizazen> as some people are not happy with the potential for -NC
<cprofitt> it in fact could hurt you...
<bodhizazen> It could
<cprofitt> as you would be the entity that would have to defend it
<bodhizazen> I am not sure =)
<cprofitt> if the author still owned the copyright they would have to defend it... or pursue the entity using it commercially
<cprofitt> the use of NC can be overcome, IMHO, if we do not ask for a transfer of ownership
<cprofitt> greg-g, are you still with us
<bodhizazen> My other question is -
<bodhizazen> what does the rest of the Ubuntu Community do with licensing ?
<cprofitt> let me clarify... though I would want another opinion...
<greg-g> cprofitt: I can be< iwas letting you all work through that stuff
<bodhizazen> we look to the community for so much, why are we not looking at how the wiki does this ?
<bodhizazen> I think wiki is probably closest to us
<cprofitt> if we publish using NC but the author retains copyright... they could use their contribution for commercial gain
<cprofitt> but not those of others...
<cprofitt> bodhizazen, I would love to know how the wiki handles user submissions, but there is no clear evidence of what they do
<bodhizazen> I know the answer - but all the same
<greg-g> cprofitt: correct re: NC and author retained copyright
<cprofitt> greg-g, thanks... that is what I thought
<bodhizazen> why are we arguing this if we have not know how wiki does it =)
<cprofitt> bodhizazen, you know the answer to how the wiki licenses contributions?
<bodhizazen> no, lol
<cprofitt> because we have to consider the license regardless of how the wiki does it...
<bodhizazen> wish I did though
<cprofitt> it may guide us, but does not alter the fact that we have to make a decision
<cprofitt> we do know how wikipedia does it though
<bodhizazen> I really hav to get some work done and once again I think we made as much progress for one session as we are going to
<bodhizazen> I appreciate the information and perspective I have been given
<bodhizazen> link for wikipedia ?
<cprofitt> Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details.
<cprofitt> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
<cprofitt> bottom of page
<cprofitt> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License
<cprofitt> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use
<cprofitt> bodhizazen, to be clear... what conflict of interest do you feel I have?
<bodhizazen> I am concerned, from comments made and strong opinions, that people intend to personally profit from this project
<bodhizazen> that was not a goal of the Project =)
<bodhizazen> and I am not sure I am completely comfortable with it
<pleia2> I think people are just concern about giving up their rights
<pleia2> concerned
<bodhizazen> but the do give up rights =)
<cprofitt> I have no ambition to personally profit from the project, but I see no reason - at this time - to limit that possibility for people
<cprofitt> bodhizazen, if they hold the copyright they do not give up their rights
<bodhizazen> we are asking them to give up the right to dictate how we use their contributions
<pleia2> yes, they give up *some* rights, but not all
<cprofitt> no, we are asking them to accept our use as CC:BY-SA
<bodhizazen> But if they publish on our server we are not giving them the right to remove their content ?
<bodhizazen> or are we ?
<cprofitt> but they would retain their rights
<cprofitt> no, we would not be giving them the right to remove the content
<cprofitt> but they would choose to publish CC:BY-SA
<bodhizazen> so they are loosing some rights then =)
<pleia2> of course some, but not all
<cprofitt> some I will agree...
<cprofitt> but if they transfer ownership they lose all
 * pleia2 nods
<bodhizazen> and some people will not like it if we need to go -NC ?
<pleia2> I think a good example would be a training firm that wrote a course, they might be willing to relicense it to us as NC as long as they retain copyright, so they can continue using it at their training facility
<pleia2> they make an exception for themselves, which they can do since they have copyright
<bodhizazen> pleia2	bodhizazen: I won't pull out of the project if we require NC and ownership, but I will not contribute my own work to the courses because it's very unfree and I'm uncomfortable with that
<pleia2> right, I won't contribute if I'm required to make it NC and give up copyright
<pleia2> that doesn't mean I *intend* to sell any of it
<pleia2> but I want the flexibility to if I choose, I don't want to sign off all my rights to it
<cprofitt> greg-g still there
<cprofitt> I have another - thought
<greg-g> go ahead
<cprofitt> if the content is published under -NC
<cprofitt> one can not charge for it
<cprofitt> similar to the source code of Linux
<cprofitt> but could one give the 'content' away but charge for their consulting to help deliver the content
<greg-g> uhhhh, correct on the first part, wrong on the source code of linux (GPL does not prohibit selling, youjust need to give them the source with it)
<cprofitt> similar to the way RedHat and Canonical sell 'support'?
<greg-g> cprofitt: certainly re: consulting
<bodhizazen> +1 greg-g
<cprofitt> so by going -NC we are really not preventing people from profiting from the material
<bodhizazen> I think that is a very very common misunderstanding
<cprofitt> we are just prohibiting them from selling the content
<greg-g> well, yes and no
<cprofitt> expand please
<greg-g> this is why NC sucks, because it is up to intrerpretation of the copyright holder/user
<greg-g> if I put your -NC stuff on my blog, but my blog has ads, is that a violation? some say yes, some say no
<greg-g> blatent violations, like selling a bound book of -NC texts, is obvious, but there are many grey areas.
<cprofitt> perhaps we should consider the GFDL
<cprofitt> http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html
<cprofitt> I understand greg-g
<cprofitt> so NC would really complicate things for us...
<greg-g> no, I suggest CC:BY-SA as that is the most commonly used license for documentation and other wiki-style projects
<greg-g> there is a reason why wikipedia transitioned away from the GFDL
<greg-g> but that is just my (obviously biased) opinion
<cprofitt> ok
<cprofitt> and for my benefit... what is your legal background...
<cprofitt> I thought it was lawyer... but I know I was incorrect in that memory
<greg-g> I have worked with lawyers at CC to better understand the legal foundations of the licenses and I also work with a group that is producing Open Educational Resources (at the University of Michigan) as a copyright expert.
<greg-g> but other than that, nothing, no law school, only one class taught by a lawyer.
<cprofitt> so... probably better than a lawyer...
<cprofitt> :-)
<greg-g> heh :)
<cprofitt> how does the UofM license?
<greg-g> we let the individual professors choose for their classes, but the content produced by Open.Michigan (the project that is doing the work, who I work for) uses CC:BY
<greg-g> so, our documentation is CC:BY but some classes might be any of CC:BY, BY-SA, BY-NC, BY-NC-SA (we disallow ND)
<cprofitt> and the author retains ownership
<cprofitt> ?
<greg-g> correct, except my work, since mine is "work for hire" thus owned by the Regents of the University. But the profs all retain ownership.
<greg-g> did that make sense?
<cprofitt> are not the professors working for the university? or is that a contract stipulation?
<greg-g> that is a contract stipulation at most universities.
<cprofitt> It does make sense... and goes in hand with what I know about things like this
<greg-g> so they can move universities and take their work with them
<cprofitt> I was embroiled in a little tiff with my employer a few years back...
<greg-g> yuck
<cprofitt> and backed up my side with several legal decisions in the state court system
<cprofitt> the tif happend prior to the start of work...
<greg-g> gotcha
<cprofitt> when they pushed their incorrect assumptions and said they would pursue legal action and not sign an agreement about that
<cprofitt> I refused to do the work they had wanted me to do unless it was with their equipment, on their time and with their software
<greg-g> right right, good job being on top of it.
<cprofitt> it cost them $1200 to have me do the job
<cprofitt> since they had to buy Visual Studio
<cprofitt> and they had to relieve me of some of my normal daily duties so I had time to do it on the job
<cprofitt> but that is where I did a lot of research
<greg-g> nice.
<cprofitt> since that time ANY program I wrote that I intended to use at my job was published GPL
<cprofitt> and then downloaded by me from the site I published it on
<cprofitt> and all work was done on my equipment on my time
<cprofitt> and to their knowledge it was a utility I downloaded
<cprofitt> stupid really
<greg-g> wow, sounds like a lot of monkeying around
<cprofitt> yeah
<cprofitt> I no longer offer to do any programming for them
<greg-g> I bet not :)
<cprofitt> I think their idiocy has cost them well over 100K since they now have to pay for off the shelf products that do not really work the way they want them too
<cprofitt> this is a logged channel I should be a little less...
<cprofitt> open about this...
<cprofitt> kill the logbot
 * cprofitt takes out knife
<greg-g> :)
<cprofitt> hey doctormo
<doctormo> Hello cprofitt
<doctormo> hello greg-g
<cprofitt> doctormo, I hate to ask this...
<cprofitt> but how do you plan on profiting from the UCLP project?
<doctormo> :-)
<greg-g> hiya doctormo
<greg-g> doctormo: and yeah, I'll work on that document tomorrow, I was on a road trip until about 3 hours ago :)
<doctormo> I plan on being able to use the materials in physical classes which I will charge $5 or $20 for a group of sessions per person in order to keep them attentive to the course and to buy me lunch.
<cprofitt> so you would not be charging for the course material but for your time as an instructor?
<doctormo> The main problem is not the money, I actually have a use case, but I'm much more concerned with the technical and principle issues.
<doctormo> cprofitt: Sure, doesn't make the enterprise any less comercial
<cprofitt> true...
<cprofitt> but the definition of that is not solid
<cprofitt> just as Canonical can charge for support...
<doctormo> Which is one of the technical problems
<cprofitt> -NC might allow consulting fees...
<cprofitt> but I agree with the issues with the vague nature of -NC
<doctormo> It's good that we're trying to get the technicals of my use case worked out, but I've yet to hear of a convincing argument why we would make derivitive works NC or new works NC.
<cprofitt> doctormo, one more question
<cprofitt> do you plan on only using your contributions or those of others in this manner?
<cprofitt> doctormo, you still here?
<cprofitt> doctormo, it was expressed that Canonical may prefer that we license under -NC
<cprofitt> but dinda has sent an email to Canonical legal to clarify that for us
<doctormo> cprofitt: Yes I'm still here
<cprofitt> k
<doctormo> cprofitt: I'm concerned that Canonical are looking out for their immediate business interests, being way too over protective and ultermatly being detrimental to their own ability to use what we make here.
<cprofitt> My question is just to determine from your mouth what your intentions / desires are and not to debate the merits of one stance over the other
<cprofitt> I agree... if we publish -NC they nor their partners would be able to use the content we produce
<cprofitt> but I was really interested in clarifying your use case...
<cprofitt> were you looking to use only your own contributions or those of others as well?
<doctormo> What would be the point of trying to form a community if not for the benifit of shared work?
<cprofitt> true... but some of the particulars as I understand them take on a different light if you are just looking to use the work you produced
<doctormo> cprofitt: Of course, I could use what ever I made with impunity to the license I give it here
<cprofitt> well there has been a suggestion that authors would be asked to transfer ownership to UCLP
<cprofitt> which impacts that
<doctormo> cprofitt: That's not possible, ULPC isn't an incorperated entity.
<cprofitt> we hashed that out as well...
<cprofitt> I did suggest to bodhi that if he felt that he needed to protect himself from possible litigation that forming a LLC and then have that the entity that donated the server and paid for the hosting would serve as the insulation potentially
<cprofitt> I am not a legal expert, but I did not see a transfer of ownership helping to eliminate legal risk
<doctormo> cprofitt: Generally transfere of ownership is a no no with copyright, not least because it's not legal in Germany
<cprofitt> I question the legality in the US as well...
<cprofitt> I know it can be done, but doing so may require expensive lawyers
<doctormo> I don't think community is as complex as rocket science. We want to maintain adiquade ownership and membership to all participents of the group. so they continue to contribute and so that they are fairly credited.
<doctormo> I believe that a healthy development community required copy-left style licenses such as CC-BY-SA, which maintain the license and give correct credit, without burdening the use of the works.
<cprofitt> I would agree with that
<doctormo> The health of contributions and participation is very important, especially for a brand new team
<cprofitt> but I have not thought long and hard on it
<cprofitt> It is definitely something the board needs to address...
<doctormo> This whole area has been hashed to death in the software development world, people who used NC, ND and other legal wierdness have died off over time, because their community collaberation is not fit to compete against naturally expanding participation of FOSS/copy-left models.
<cprofitt> despite the previous decision to go with CC:BY-SA that was done prior to the board I think...
<cprofitt> so we many need to adopt a structure... and then finalize the license in an 'official' sense
<cprofitt> what if authors were allowed to choose the the CC: license of their choice?
<doctormo> I'm reluctant to give up on copy-left because it's been proven so effective and fair. Other models are unproven or unstable and while this sometimes comes accross as hiden agendas, I'm fairly certain I'm thinking about the groups best interest when I attach myself to the copy-left ideal.
<cprofitt> I believe we are all thinking about the groups best interest
<doctormo> cprofitt: That has problems with collaberation and allowing people to mean spirited, could you suppose what would happen if launchpad allowed none FOSS licenses (which it doesn't btw)
<cprofitt> though I do acknowledge bodhi's need for legal separation
<doctormo> I'd also like to be able to get these works processed into pot and po files and uploaded to launchpad for translation services, some technical pokery, but that won't be possible with NC or ND works.
<cprofitt> doctormo, I agree...
<cprofitt> but what about allowing authors to choose a CC license
<cprofitt> ah... I see...
<cprofitt> so we should avoid an author being able to choose -NC
<cprofitt> or it limits what can be done with it...
<doctormo> I think we should, but I think bodi is fearful that doing that will incur the wrath of Canonical.
<cprofitt> not following on how having them translated would be commercial
<cprofitt> what about 'pointing' people to NC works...
<cprofitt> not including them in the course, but using them as a professor would a text book
<doctormo> Well, I don't believe that's a problem because it's reference, and you'd be allowed to do that even if it was all rights reserved.
<cprofitt> that is what I thought
<cprofitt> actually -- it is Montana
<cprofitt> not east coast
<doctormo> greg-g would be a better at being sure about that
<cprofitt> good morning folks
<pleia2> morning cprofitt
<cprofitt> pleia2, https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Learning/Notes/06182009
<cprofitt> good morning
<pleia2> cprofitt: can you move that to Agenda/06182009 so we can be consistant?
<cprofitt> it is not a meeting...
<pleia2> oh
<cprofitt> it is just an impromptu discussion...
<cprofitt> so I was not sure we should 'meeting' it
<pleia2> actually and Agenda wasn't where we put the real logs
<pleia2> hm
<cprofitt> but I did want others to be able to see the conversations around the issue.
<cprofitt> transparency
<pleia2> sounds good :)
<cprofitt> dinda, any thing back from legal?
<doctormo> pleia2, bodhizazen: morning
<pleia2> doctormo: hey
<doctormo> pleia2: I got an update last night from cprofitt about further discussions that went on about licensing.
<pleia2> doctormo: did he send you a link to the logs?
<doctormo> pleia2: yes
<pleia2> ok
<doctormo> sounded quite heated at times
<bodhizazen> hye everyone :)
<pleia2> mostly I was just trying to understand the issues
<pleia2> but as I already told cprofitt, I'm going to go into hiding again WRT our public debate about this again, it's getting to be a bit much
<doctormo> wrt?
<pleia2> arguing over NC, copyright, and legal problems
<pleia2> I don't know enough about any of it to be productive in the conversation anyway :)
<doctormo> N I mean what does WRT mean
<pleia2> oh "with regard to"
<bodhizazen> I agree pleia2 , IMO these discussions are :
<bodhizazen> 1. based on insufficeint information
<bodhizazen> 2. way too heated
<bodhizazen> we need to find a more productive way to discuss and resolve the issues
<bodhizazen> demands and threats are probably not so productive , and the seem to come from all sides ;)
<doctormo> bodhizazen: I agree, but I'd change 1. to, people with information unable to deliver it in a recognisable way
<bodhizazen> +1 on that too doctormo
<pleia2> well, we still lack an answer from canonical about NC
<bodhizazen> I think the information needs to be discussed in a way people learn and understand
<bodhizazen> I saw we wait for a reply from canonical :)
<bodhizazen> it is a critical piece of the puzzel
 * pleia2 nods
<bodhizazen> Although rational , informational discussions are helpful
<bodhizazen> such as, for example
<bodhizazen> 1. what options do we have for license and what do other community teams handle this issue ?
<bodhizazen> :)
<bodhizazen> soeey that was a run on #1
<doctormo> bodhizazen: That's reallly too questions
<doctormo> two*
<doctormo> 1a. It's preferable to use the Creative Commons ramework, If we want to use launchpad or other Ubuntu tools, it needs to be copy-left.
<doctormo> 1b. Software projects are _always_ copy-left (GPL) or BSD (less) licenses, more restrictive ones aren't accepted. Everything on OpenClpart.org is PublicDomain (PD), things on SpreadUbuntu are CC-BY-(SA), the wiki and the forums are unknown.
<cprofitt> I think we have two issues that require clarification:
<cprofitt> 1)  What does Canonical prefer? What will they accept?
<cprofitt> 2)  What steps can bodhizazen take to protect himself from a legal issue regarding his contribution of the server / hosting / domain resources
<cprofitt> I think 1 comes from Canonical, but 2 comes from a lawyer... and for bodhizazen's sake it should be one he is comfortable with
<doctormo> cprofitt: It's fairly certain that we're waiting on 1) and 2 is something of a lawyer answer. Protection from what exactly?
<cprofitt> doctormo, if a person decides to go after the 'website' for hosting content -- that would be bodhi
<cprofitt> as he is the legal 'owner' of the hardware and current domain name
<doctormo> cprofitt: For copyright infringement or trademark problems?
<cprofitt> both and any other issues
<doctormo> Perhaps we should make a point of getting contributors to sign saying that all works they post are their own and not created or soruced from any third party. Clear up issues that would.
<doctormo> But best is a lawyer
<cprofitt> that would be one possibility...
<cprofitt> but does not remove possible litigation against bodhizazen
<cprofitt> the best course of action, from what I know, if for bodhi to form an LLC and then that LLC is what pays for an operates the server etc
<doctormo> I know, it's a reduction in complexity when ity comes to fighting such things, I mean safe harbour is usually enough.
<cprofitt> then the LLC could be liable, but not bodhizazen
<cprofitt> gotta run to meeting
<cprofitt> bbiaf
<doctormo> Thanks bodhizazen, pleia2, I think we have a solid course of action: wait
<dinda> cprofitt: doctormo_ pleia2 et al:  I have something of an answer from our legal team
<pleia2> great
<doctormo_> dinda: great
<dinda> unfortunately, as with most legal things, I'm not sure it makes things any clearer for what you folks decide to do,. . .
<dinda> first:  no opinion on licensing, either is fine, no conflicts
<dinda> second: they recommend the project get some legal advice from SFLC
<dinda> we can effect an introduction
<dinda> all that aside, there are now questions as to where the server should be hosted, i.e if you want an ubuntu.com subdomain then elmo, James Troup has already said he would prefer it be in the Canonical data centre. . .
<dinda> I think he was going to work with bodhizazen on that issue already??
<pleia2> I believe so
<cprofitt> SFLC?
<doctormo> dinda: Aye, that's an issue for bodhizazen and other sys-admins,
<dinda> kewl, then bodhizazen already knows all the issues involved in that
<doctormo> cprofitt: Software Freedom Law Center
<doctormo> cprofitt: The FSF spin off group
<dinda> Software Freedom Legal Counsel - i believe
<cprofitt> dinda, that would remove some of Bodhi's concerns if Canonical hosted it.
 * pleia2 nods
<dinda> cprofitt: yes but the trade offs are in responsiveness and sys-admin access
<doctormo> Although what would he do with the investment he's already made?
<cprofitt> dinda, true... true
<pleia2> dinda: thank you :) this gives us a lot to discuss
<cprofitt> he would likely just use the server for UBT items if Canonical hosted it.
<doctormo> I wonder if I can further wine and dine jpds ;-)
<cprofitt> I appreciate the information dinda
<cprofitt> we will have to discuss it more...
<doctormo> dinda: So if I understand the licensing response correctly, Canonical have no conflicts with us creating new content or brining in works under CC-BY-SA and won't require the project to make everything NC. But existing material for the desktop created by Canonical will remain NC as stands?
<cprofitt> that is correct doctormo
<cprofitt> updates our notes - https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Learning/Notes/06182009
<dinda> doctormo: correct
<cprofitt> I have to run to another meeting... bbiaf
<doctormo> Thanks dinda, that clears up some of the issues we've been waiting on
<dinda> doctormo: good, we didn't want to be a blocker on any of this really
<doctormo> dinda: May I ask, if the learning project was to be sucesful (in a wikipedia kind of way) at brining in comprahensive contrabutions of teaching topics, would Canonical consider contributing if it would the material useful for it's own private courses?
<dinda> doctormo: i have no idea, my boss says, "show us the stuff first" in that she wants a certain level of quality, as do I. . .
<doctormo> dinda: As do we, one of the topics that I'll bring up soon is quality control
<dinda> doctormo: but given our current workload and obligations to existing training partners we simply don't have time to contribute
<doctormo> dinda: I'll keep in mind that your open minded about it though, this would be the correct idea?
<dinda> doctormo:  haven't had time to even think about it, honestly :)
<dinda> doctormo: my heart is inthe community since that's where I came from but my bank account is fueled elsewhere ;)
 * txwikinger_work understands the bank account aspect
 * bodhizazen reads up
<bodhizazen> dinda: I have no problem if canonical wants to bring server into data center
<bodhizazen> up to now they have not offered is all
<bodhizazen> My question would be on system admin / access to server, I do not know how that works
<dinda> bodhizazen: the problem is admin access
<dinda> bodhizazen: exactly, I've asked James Troup, elmo, to try to detail a plan that would work similar to Canonical hosted loco sites and the forums
<dinda> bodhizazen: and honestly if he says something like it can only be a Canonical employee with root sys admin access even blinks in my direction I will run screaming
<dinda> bodhizazen: I have no idea how they handle forums or other shared access sites with community
<bodhizazen> Well, just for everyone's benefit, when this project started we we told canonical did not have resources, ie server or sys admin for our project
<bodhizazen> which is why I provided =)
<bodhizazen> It seems they may now have resources , and there are advantages to that
<doctormo> dinda: From the LoCo aspect I know plenty of LoCo groups (including mine) that host elsewhere
<bodhizazen> again a physical server is one thing, sys admin is another and if they are willing to provide or assist with sys admin that would be awesome
<bodhizazen> but if we need someone to sys admin the serer, then I would need at least some admin access, not sure if full root access would be necessary
<dinda> bodhizazen: we still don't have those resources.. .
<bodhizazen> I am "OK" at running servers
<dinda> bodhizazen: the issue came up when you asked for the subdomain
<dinda> those have to be controlled by us for security, etc, as I'm being told, thus elmo stepping in
<bodhizazen> so by data center then are you suggesting we move my current server physically to a different data center ?
<dinda> bodhizazen: good question, no idea what that may mean
<bodhizazen> I guess I am not following what your are proposing then in terms of server / subdomain
<bodhizazen> Ah , LOL
 * doctormo wonders if ubuntu-learning.com is free
<dinda> remember none of this is an issue if you want to keep the URL say "bodhi'sradubuntulearning.com"
<bodhizazen> right now I have 2 domains
<dinda> doctormo: it's not as a matter of fact, they're about to get a nice take down notice
<bodhizazen> bodhizazen.net
<bodhizazen> ufbt.net
<bodhizazen> could add learn.* to either or register a new domain
<bodhizazen> not sure if the group would  prefer :
<bodhizazen> 1. learn.bodhizazen.net
<dinda> so those are all fine but if it's hosted at an ubuntu.com domain. . .well that's where our sysadmins got all twitchy
<bodhizazen> 2. learn.ufbt.net
<bodhizazen> 3. learn.ubuntu.com
<bodhizazen> or 4. donate $ for new domain
<dinda> and then we would simply put a link on the ubuntu.com/training site that linked to that site as the community learning site
<txwikinger_work> well.. it maybe makes sense to make it a virtual server if root access is an issue
<doctormo> dinda: whois says ubuntu-learning.com isn't found, hmm
<txwikinger_work> there should not be any issue to have root access to a virtual server
<bodhizazen> depends on the paranoia of the sysadmin and location of the server txwikinger :)
<txwikinger_work> bodhizazen: why?
<bodhizazen> root access on a VPS can certainly be abused =)
<txwikinger_work> well... maybe we should shut down the Internet, since it can easily be abused ;)
<dinda> txwikinger_work: it's an issue, it's the same in the virtual labs we host in our data centre, believe me
<txwikinger_work> well.. I run virtual servers in several different data-centres
<bodhizazen> lol txwikinger_work that is a bit extreem
<bodhizazen> do you give root access to people you do not know ?
<txwikinger_work> bodhizazen: Well.. that is what the German government tries to do ;)
<txwikinger_work> bodhizazen: Well, they give me root access and they do not knwo me
<dinda> bodhizazen: and then there's the whole Moodle aspect of things which has been a lot less fun than I want
<bodhizazen> And if one of your VPS went AWOL would you not take action ?
<bodhizazen> use you root powers then on your VPS to start trouble and see what happens to your VPS =)
<dinda> they had to make me a Moodle sys admin just to do what I needed in the site and I never had any intentions of being a sys admin or the work it's requiring
<txwikinger_work> well.. they probably stop my VPS and tell me off :D
<bodhizazen> that was my point txwikinger_work
<txwikinger_work> Well.. I had a case where a client of mine was hacked
<txwikinger_work> they sent them an e-mail
<txwikinger_work> the client then asked me to fix it
<txwikinger_work> So, no big deal
<dinda> txwikinger_work: it was a big deal when several of the canonical hosted loco sites got hacked
<bodhizazen> sigh
<txwikinger_work> they did dinda?
<bodhizazen> sometimes I feel the tone on this channel is too confrontational
<bodhizazen> not very ubutnu of us
<txwikinger_work> Did not hear about that. We host our (quasi-Loco) on our own virtual server
<txwikinger_work> bodhizazen: When? at the moment?
<dinda> txwikinger: yeah, that's what caught the eye of elmo when he heard about this group trying to get a redirect
<dinda> bodhizazen: it's not meant to be - at least from me
<bodhizazen> in general txwikinger_work
<bodhizazen> and yes your comments did seem a bit out of line
<txwikinger_work> Hmm.. I seem to have not enough time to be here then... did not notice that  ;)
<txwikinger_work> My comments? What did I say that was confrontational?
<dinda> Okay, so next 'official' meeting is set for 22 june
 * dinda goes to put on her calendar
<bodhizazen> I would rather not discuss it txwikinger_work
<bodhizazen> suffice it to say that is the way you came across
<bodhizazen> although I may be over sensative
<txwikinger_work> bodhizazen: Well I am sorry, I did not mean to offend anybody
<dinda> bodhizazen: I think he was just showing some examples, didn't seem out of line to me
<bodhizazen> thank you , I will try to be less sensitive as well
<dinda> quick someone tell a joke!
<dinda> two astronauts walk into a bar. . .
<doctormo> I can not see offence or anything that breaks the CoC
<bodhizazen> I am one of the paranoid types and take security fairly serious is all
<txwikinger_work> bodhizazen: I have no quarrels with that
<bodhizazen> But as a larger issue, this channel does not always seem like fun and games
<bodhizazen> and an observation
<bodhizazen> *as*
<doctormo> bodhizazen: Indeed, not everything can be fun and games unfortunatly.
<bodhizazen> Now some of that may be my falult, and I will work on that
<bodhizazen> but ...
<bodhizazen> doctormo: true, but there are more and less productive ways to work through the issues and I think this team could improve
<doctormo> bodhizazen: Of course, we're not machine men with machine minds and machine hearts (10 points for getting that quote)
<dinda> bodhizazen: chalk it up to growing pains, once the baseline is established then the social stuff comes
<cprofitt> greg-g, thanks for your assistance last night
 * dthacker-work wanders in
 * cprofitt waves
<cprofitt> gotta go soon, but just hanging here until it is time to go
<dthacker-work> on a break between projects at work.
 * cprofitt smiles
<dthacker-work> anything exciting happening?
<dthacker-work> I'll probably be out of pocket until Saturday
<cprofitt> this should catch you up - https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Learning/Notes/06182009
<dthacker-work> awesome. thanks!
<cprofitt> np
<cprofitt> gotta run guys... cya later
<dthacker-work> well that's as clear as mud.    I think I'll concentrate on coursework.
<dthacker-work> type at you all on Saturday.
<greg-g> doctormo: hey, regarding that Licensing page. The topic you propsed to me was "Why BY-SA and not NC or ND" right?  I ask because I think from what I saw in last night's discussion that the topic of NC was not settled. Confirm/Deny?
<pleia2> greg-g: Canonical got back to us today, they are letting us move forward w/o NC :)
<greg-g> wee
<bodhizazen> I had a suggestion on another channel =)
<pleia2> so we still have an official vote on monday, but I think we're pretty much set on CC-BY-SA just like the DocTeam
<bodhizazen> can we allow authors the option of either BY-SA with or without -NC ?
<bodhizazen> authors can decide for him or herself ?
<doctormo> bodhizazen: I don't know, I think we have to consider derivitive works (what multiple people want) and avoid creating legal hassles and complications. Promoting an option is likely to lead to people taking it, even when they don't really need to, over protective and detrimental to community efforts. Althought hat's just my view when it comes to software projects.
<DougieRichardson> evening all bodhizazen: do you mean letting contributers decide
<bodhizazen> yes DougieRichardson
<bodhizazen> That is the advice I recieved elsewhere
<DougieRichardson> fwiw I think that's probably not the way to go. While I agree a writer should determine what license, it will cause confusion
<DougieRichardson> it would probably be better to decide and inform contributers of what license
<pwnguin> how many courses is the project committing to?
<pwnguin> if there's expected to be lots of courses there might be a case for pushing out the decision to the authors, but if it's just a few high profile projects, then probably without -NC will make more sense
<pwnguin> on a related note
<pwnguin> did anyone hear about instructables?
<doctormo> bodhizazen: I'm looking to see if my reasoning was understandable to you, because I really do want to be able to explain these ideas in the clearest possible way.
<greg-g> if the authors get to choose, and one chooses BY-SA and one chooses BY-NC-SA then they can never work on the same project together.
<greg-g> s/project/document/
<pwnguin> thats not quite right, but yes
<pwnguin> they are incompatible
#ubuntu-learning 2009-06-19
<dinda> what is the best mailing address for this project?  the LP one?
<bodhizazen> yes dinda
<bodhizazen> dinda: do we have an official response re licensing ?
<bodhizazen> thank you doctormo
<pleia2> no, the lists.ubuntu.com one is the official one
<bodhizazen> I appreciate that
<pleia2> the LP one needs to be shut down
<bodhizazen> it is ???
<bodhizazen> lol
<pleia2> yes
<pleia2> we were only using the LP one until we got the lists.ubuntu.com one sorted (it is now)
<bodhizazen> doctormo: I have been checking licensing issues with other sources (no offense to anyone on this channel)
<dinda> bodhizazen: was trying to find the official project mailing list so I can send the referral info for legal advice from the SFLC
<bodhizazen> thank you dinda
<dinda> pleia2: so which is the project mailing list?
<pleia2> the one linked on the wiki page, sec
<pleia2> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-learning
<dinda> ack - I gotta figure out which folder these are being filtered to on Tbird as I've not seen these posts
<pleia2> oh, and it shouldnt make the From: address be UCLP anymore ;) I fisehd that
<pleia2> fixed too
<pleia2> ok, heading off for the evening
<dinda> just got directed to this site from the Sugar group:  http://www.linux-for-education.org/
<dinda> yet another Moodle Open source learning site
<doctormo> dinda: Thanks! it's CC-BY-SA too :-D good for remixing and stuff. I'll add it to the wiki page
<cprofitt> hello doctormo dthacker pleia2 greg-g popey
<popey> hi
<doctormo> Hello cprofitt, popey
<pleia2> morning
<cprofitt> popey
<cprofitt> do you have time to talk about a LoCo related item
<popey> go for i
<popey> *it
<cprofitt> The NY team will be applying again in July...
<cprofitt> this the format I am going to use - https://wiki.ubuntu.com/NewYorkTeam/ApprovalApplicationDraft
<cprofitt> for the application -- does that look good (information needs to be added)
<popey> sure
<popey> the information is more important than the format :)
<doctormo> cprofitt: I thought the NY team was approved already
<cprofitt> and the second to that is how to consolidate the following -- https://wiki.ubuntu.com/NewYorkTeam/Events
<cprofitt> doctormo, no we were turned down in March
<cprofitt> and turned down the year before
<popey> i like that events page
<cprofitt> should I just link to the event and meeting lists popey ?
<doctormo> cprofitt: hmm, not enough events or some red tape glitch?
<cprofitt> I had those events on our last app in March and it seemed to confuse the council
<cprofitt> doctormo, back in March we were told we did not have enough sustained activity
<cprofitt> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/NewYorkTeam/Events/Past
<cprofitt> the nature of the LoCos events has changed since I got more involved in scheduling them as well...
<cprofitt> popey, we have a sep. page for meetings - https://wiki.ubuntu.com/NewYorkTeam/Meetings/Past
<cprofitt> so I am thinking of listing a summary of event totals over the last 12 months, meetings over the last twelve months... with a highlight on a few key events...
<popey> nice and comprehensive
<cprofitt> then linking to the full archive pages
<popey> yeah
<cprofitt> popey, should I repackage the What We Do and Goals section (bottom of page) from here as well -- https://wiki.ubuntu.com/NewYorkTeam/ ?
<popey> if a few of the "what we do" lines linked to supporting logs/photos/blogs/etc that might be useful
<doctormo> cprofitt: If ever your up in Massachusetts, come and see what we do at community centers, every week we teach Ubuntu Desktop.
<cprofitt> ok... sounds good.
<cprofitt> doctormo, we are looking to try and get the ability to teach - but so far we do not have any 'centers' that have computers that have interest
<cprofitt> the two I know of are 'blue' with Microsoft and have no interest from changing, but I do communicate with them
<cprofitt> I am currently searching out (have found two) teachers who use Linux at the K-12 level
<cprofitt> and looking to support them... and help them 'sway' others
<cprofitt> popey, do you feel we have enough activity? the right mix of activities?
<popey> looks good to me :)
<doctormo> cprofitt: We've found it's good to teach techies to teach first and then people will get confortable, to be honest the SETC has acted like a weekly beacon and people come even to not teach but just to hang and talk and think about Ubuntu.
<cprofitt> popey, thanks... I really want to nail this one down... to avoid any negative feelings like we had the last time...
<doctormo> core members mostly do the teaching.
<popey> sure
<cprofitt> so I want to work with you guys to make sure I present the information in the best possible manner
<greg-g> morning all
<cprofitt> hey greg-g
<tidd> I feel like I have a really stupid question. ioctl, what package installs it? I cannot seem to find it, running jaunty
<bodhi_zazen> playpen us up ;)
<bodhi_zazen> *is
<doctormo> bodhi_zazen: thanks
<bodhi_zazen> it will be at learn.bodhizazen.net
<bodhi_zazen> I need to configure my router , can not access from work
<bodhi_zazen> I was wrong, it is up now
<bodhi_zazen> http://learn.bodhizazen.net/moodle/
#ubuntu-learning 2009-06-20
<bodhi_zazen> did dinda send an email to the mailing list ?
<bodhi_zazen> if so I did not get a copy
<pleia2> not yet
<bodhi_zazen> thanks pleia2
<cprofitt> popey, you here?
<cprofitt> pleia2, https://wiki.ubuntu.com/NewYorkTeam/ApprovalApplicationDraft thoughts?
<popey> i am cprofitt
<pleia2> noo, you are popey :)
<popey> heh
<cprofitt> cool... I have done a bit more work on the application -- https://wiki.ubuntu.com/NewYorkTeam/ApprovalApplicationDraft
<cprofitt> and wanted to get your opinion
<pleia2> cprofitt: hm, bottom of the page incomplete?
<cprofitt> yes, I need to add the members
<cprofitt> I know of Ausimage and myself...
<cprofitt> need to see if there are others
<pleia2> cprofitt: this is really good :)
<cprofitt> thanks... are the links to the complete list of meetings, events, etc... visible enough?
<pleia2> yep
<cprofitt> k
<cprofitt> any changes you would suggest pleia2 or popey ?
<pleia2> you Website url is wrong
<pleia2> your
<pleia2> copy from ubuntu-ie? :)
<cprofitt> pleia2, yes - took the format from them
<cprofitt> pleia2, updated now.
<pleia2> :)
<pleia2> no suggestions from me otherwise, looks great
<cprofitt> the information is deep enough?
<cprofitt> popey, any comments - suggestions?
<nhandler> Is the UCLP going to be creating a team report this month? Vantrax said he was working on it, but I haven't seen anything so far
<doctormo> nhandler: Not sure, reports are normally bourn from meetings, meetings > actions > actions done, with whatever ever else appended as we go.
<nhandler> doctormo: Not necessarily. The team reports are just an easy way to keep the rest of the community informed about what the team has been up to for the past month
<nhandler> This team has been up to a fair amount ;)
<doctormo> Somethings are best left undocumented ;-) in seriousness I think your right, just have to find a way to pulicise the group, but we don't want to do that until the theme for the moodle server is done
<doctormo> Which seems a bit of a sticking point because of the way moodle works
<nhandler> Well, it is your decision. Just pass along the reminder to cprofitt and Vantrax for me. I think they expressed an interest a while ago
<doctormo> Will do
#ubuntu-learning 2009-06-21
<bodhi_zazen> was looking for Van :)
<pleia2> haven't seen him in a few days :\
<Jimmy2> can someone help me install a printer driver
<nhandler> Jimmy2: Try #ubuntu for support
<Jimmy2> thanks
<nhandler> cprofitt: Are you guys planning on doing a team report for June?
<cprofitt> nhandler, part of it is done...
<cprofitt> but I do have to add some stuff
<cprofitt> it is already on the page nhandler
<nhandler> cprofitt: What page?
<cprofitt> the team reports page
<nhandler> cprofitt: What team reports page?
<cprofitt> stop
<cprofitt> what team nhandler ?
<nhandler> cprofitt: The UCLP
<cprofitt> where would they make such a report...
<cprofitt> I thought you were talking about the NY Team
<cprofitt> same place as the loco teams?
<nhandler> cprofitt: Follow https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BuildingCommunity/TeamReporting/HowTo to setup team reporting for the UCLP. I thought Vantrax was working on it last month, but I haven't seen anything so far.
<cprofitt> I thought Van was doing the UCLP reporting as well...
<cprofitt> which is why I thought you were talking about NY
<cprofitt> which I already have partially done
<nhandler> Well, I haven't seen Vantrax lately, and the month is coming to an end. I just don't want to see the UCLP get left out
<cprofitt> we are having some issues... not sure we should report yet...
<cprofitt> I will bring it up at our meeting tomorrow night
<nhandler> cprofitt: Ok. Although I personally think that the UCLP has had a fair ammount of activity this month that the rest of the community might be interested in
<cprofitt> nhandler, yes... we also have a lot of internal strife currently over licensing and it may be best to keep the team on the low down
<cprofitt> until we have some processes established for how to have members join, etc.
<pleia2> we've had meetings :) we can put at least those up
<pleia2> and I think the licensing stuff is mostly sorted?
<pleia2> I think bodhi just needs his legal concerns addressed and we'll be good to go
<pleia2> nhandler: hmm, before I do all the work to try this - do you know if including things from wikis outside wiki.ubuntu.com works?
<nhandler> pleia2: I have no idea. Sorry
<pleia2> ok, I shall experiment
<pleia2> hm, no, this won't work
<Vantrax> hello all
<pleia2> hey Vantrax, where have you been? :)
<Vantrax> dislocated my hip
<pleia2> ouch!
<pleia2> you ok?
<Vantrax> yeah, i am now
<Vantrax> been a rough few days
 * pleia2 nods
<pleia2> Vantrax: mind if I go ahead and set up the TeamReports infrastructure for the project?
<pleia2> I know you said you'd do it, but it seems like you've got enough on your plate :)
<Vantrax> yeah, nhandler has been poking me for it
<Vantrax> do we really want to have our meetings put into the UWN untill were sorted?
<Vantrax> thats where the reports end up
<pleia2> cprofitt said the same thing
<pleia2> I think transparency is good, even while getting organized
<pleia2> and we did go to the CC and all this month
<Vantrax> fair enough
<Vantrax> that was one reason I was holding off a bit
<Vantrax> considering we wanted to wait to make a general community announcement
<pleia2> I won't push it if the rest of the team doesn't agree, but I think we're pretty close to finishing sorting out the licensing issues
<pleia2> and it'd be nice to start reporting, I think :)
<pleia2> I dunno how much you've been kept in the loop, but Canonical has no problem with us moving forward w/o NC
<Vantrax> yeah i saw the convo's linked in the agenda
<Vantrax> I was 99% sure of that, but it was worth confirming
<pleia2> cool
<Vantrax> I can see the benefit of NC, but the problems will eventually outwiegh the benefits
 * pleia2 nods
<Vantrax> its much easier to stick with BY-SA
<pleia2> yep, plus that would keep us in sync with the DocTeam
<Vantrax> We can always use a self contained NC course such as the how to moodle course
<Vantrax> but no mixin
 * pleia2 nods
<Vantrax> So we are going to have to recreate the Desktop Training materials
<Vantrax> since we cant use them
<pleia2> yeah, but I'm not too worried there, there is loads of stuff in the community that can be used
<pleia2> wb cprofitt
<pleia2> look, Vantrax is back!
<cprofitt> Hey Vantrax
<Vantrax> you guys can email me if you miss me you know, It goes straight to my phone:P
<pleia2> hehe
<Vantrax> doctormo, pleia2 you guys here?
<pleia2> yep
<Vantrax> doctormo?
<cprofitt> I am here
<Vantrax> i know you are:P
<Vantrax> just seeing if martin is around first
<Vantrax> few things we should get discuss that seem to be causing issues
<pleia2> we have a meeting planned for 24 hours from now
<cprofitt> yes, we do.
<cprofitt> tomorrow night
<cprofitt> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Learning/Agenda
<Vantrax> yeah, this is more issues for the board specificaly
#ubuntu-learning 2010-06-22
<duanedesign> 1
#ubuntu-learning 2010-06-23
<doctormo> pleia2: Hmm, I'm not sure why we're having lots of C# lessons for Ubuntu, I though C# was just to get windows apps to Linux.
