[01:54] <greg-g> o/
[01:54] <cprofitt> hey greg-g
[01:54] <cprofitt> thanks for stopping in
[01:55] <cprofitt> We have some questions concerning CC and ownership
[01:55] <cprofitt> pleia2, bodhizazen
[01:55] <greg-g> ready when you are
[01:55] <pleia2> oh
[01:55] <pleia2> or we can do it now :)
[01:56] <pleia2> hehe
[01:56] <cprofitt> First item...
[01:56] <cprofitt> is there a way for the UCLP to 'own' the copyright (CC) on the product of a course author?
[01:57] <cprofitt> and in your opinion is such ownership, if possible, necessary and/or desirable?
[01:57] <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
[01:58] <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
[01:58] <cprofitt> does UCLP have to be a legal entity?
[01:58] <greg-g> it might
[01:58] <greg-g> I am not a lawyer and all that
[01:58] <cprofitt> ah... I thought you were...
[01:59] <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
[01:59] <bodhizazen> :)
[01:59] <cprofitt> Well... I am under the impression that if an author licenses under CC:BY-SA they still OWN the work
[02:00] <cprofitt> where as if UCLP 'owns' the work the author would not license it under CC:BY-SA
[02:00] <cprofitt> but UCLP would...
[02:00] <bodhizazen> I would prefer if we did that
[02:00] <cprofitt> thus the author would not be give attribution unless the UCLP wanted to do so
[02:00] <bodhizazen> have all contributors sign/agree to (check box is fine) to assigning their copyright to the project
[02:00] <cprofitt> it would not legally be required
[02:00] <bodhizazen> it woudl make things a whole lot easier
[02:01] <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)
[02:01] <cprofitt> I understand that...
[02:01] <cprofitt> but if they transfer ownership, which some would like them to do, ...
[02:02] <greg-g> then you can do whatever you want with it
[02:02] <greg-g> :)
[02:02] <cprofitt> then they are no longer the licensor - and they would not legally have to be given attribution if logic follows
[02:02] <greg-g> correct, you would just have attribution be "UCLP" or whatever
[02:02] <cprofitt> so we would be asking them to give up their 'rights' to their work
[02:02] <cprofitt> ok...
[02:02] <greg-g> correct.
[02:02] <cprofitt> that is what I thought
[02:02] <cprofitt> so... were you joking about not being a lawyer... or do I still really need to seek out a copyright lawyer
[02:02] <greg-g> these are good questions, btw. I like this.
[02:03] <bodhizazen> correct what , lol =)
[02:03] <greg-g> bodhizazen: correct to "21:02 <  cprofitt> so we would be asking them to give up their 'rights' to their work"
[02:03] <greg-g> :)
[02:03] <bodhizazen> thanks
[02:04] <bodhizazen> I am advocating the UCLP as that from contributing authors
[02:04] <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
[02:04] <cprofitt> if they do CC:BY-SA they would not be able to revoke our right to use the content or would they?
[02:04] <greg-g> cprofitt: nope, they can't revoke the license
[02:04] <pleia2> I think that's plenty then
[02:04] <cprofitt> that is also what I thought
[02:04] <greg-g> s/nope/correct/ #for clarity
[02:04] <pleia2> no need to "own" it
[02:05] <cprofitt> so we really have no need to 'own' it
[02:05] <cprofitt> and that makes the question of the UCLP needing to become a 'legal entity' unnecessary
[02:05]  * pleia2 nods
[02:05] <cprofitt> now...
[02:05] <cprofitt> for using NC or not using NC...
[02:05] <cprofitt> You had related some reservations on using NC...
[02:06] <cprofitt> can you cover those again for the benefit of bodhizazen, pleia2 and myself
[02:06] <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")
[02:06] <bodhizazen> wait, are we going to use such a check box ?
[02:06] <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.
[02:07] <cprofitt> bodhizazen, we may use a checkbox, but only for an agreement that they are publishing their work CC:BY**
[02:07] <greg-g> bodhizazen: I'm just giving more suggestions than you all are asking for :)
[02:07] <bodhizazen> why would we not ask them to assign copyrights over to the UCLP ?
[02:08] <pleia2> bodhizazen: for one, we're not a legal entity (might have to be)
[02:08] <cprofitt> bodhizazen, because there is NO need to do so
[02:08] <pleia2> I really don't see the benefits of it, and see contributors being reluctant to sign over copyright
[02:08] <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)
[02:09] <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 =)
[02:10] <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
[02:10] <pleia2> bodhizazen: greg-g confirmed that they can't revoke the CC:BY-SA license
[02:10] <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 ?
[02:10] <pleia2> they can't
[02:10] <cprofitt> I asked the can they force us to remove it and greg-g said they can not do so
[02:10] <pleia2> it's already CC:BY-SA
[02:10] <cprofitt> which is how I understand GPL and CC to work
[02:10] <bodhizazen> Well, I am not wanting to pay the legal defense if the UCLP is sued =)
[02:10] <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.
[02:11] <cprofitt> the items you published as CC or GPL can not be removed from that license
[02:11] <greg-g> right ^^
[02:11] <bodhizazen> And i am concerned as I own the server
[02:11] <bodhizazen> so I do not want to be left on the ship when the $h*t hits the fan and the rats leave =)
[02:11] <pleia2> ownership doesn't help, it causes us to have more legal responsibilities and work and we may lose contributors
[02:12] <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)
[02:12] <bodhizazen> I am not talking ownership =)
[02:12] <cprofitt> as for legal defense... regardless of what a person did or not...
[02:12] <bodhizazen> I am talking copyright
[02:12]  * cprofitt sigh
[02:12] <greg-g> bodhizazen: right, see my last comment about the DMCA
[02:12] <cprofitt> they would be publishing under CC:BY-SA
[02:12] <bodhizazen> thank you
[02:12] <greg-g> np
[02:13] <cprofitt> that would be the copyright...
[02:13] <bodhizazen> so, what you are saying is they could threaten a law suit
[02:13] <greg-g> but they would be wrong
[02:13] <cprofitt> ownership of that copyright would be theirs
[02:13] <pleia2> anyone can threaten anything
[02:13] <bodhizazen> and we would then need to decide to
[02:13] <bodhizazen> 1. remove content
[02:13] <bodhizazen> 2,. mount a defense
[02:13] <cprofitt> which they could do even if they 'assigned' ownership
[02:13] <pleia2> you risk this by putting anything online ever, anyone can accuse you of anything
[02:13] <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
[02:13] <bodhizazen> yes, but even if we win we still need to defend
[02:14] <cprofitt> if you really want to protect yourself you should 503c UCLP
[02:14] <bodhizazen> That may be a very good idea cprofitt ;)
[02:14] <pleia2> it's really not
[02:14] <cprofitt> regardless of how we ask them to copyright or assign ownership a person can dispute things...
[02:15] <bodhizazen> I understand that
[02:15] <cprofitt> the only way to legally protect yourself is to setup a corporation of some sort
[02:15] <cprofitt> and have that bear the burden
[02:15] <bodhizazen> but I see asking them to assign copyright to teh UCLP as productive
[02:15] <cprofitt> it would pay the bills for the server, domain name and bandwidth etc
[02:15] <bodhizazen> it seems many successful projects do that
[02:16] <cprofitt> assigning of copyright is assigning of ownership
[02:16] <pleia2> cprofitt: if we incorporated we couldn't use the Ubuntu name, or domain
[02:16] <bodhizazen> is that not what the wiki does ?
[02:16] <cprofitt> and affords no legal protection from frivolous lawsuits
[02:16] <bodhizazen> no pleia2
[02:16] <cprofitt> pleia2, incorrect
[02:17] <bodhizazen> the UCLP corporation can call itself anything it wants =)
[02:17] <cprofitt> bodhi could incorporate but not use the ubuntu name
[02:17] <pleia2> Canonical allows usage of the Ubuntu name by other corporations?
[02:17] <cprofitt> and then the corporation can be the entity providing the resources to UCLP
[02:17] <cprofitt> its a legal slip knot
[02:17] <bodhizazen> It could be called bodhi's insuracne that he does not loose his shirt LLC =)
[02:17] <pleia2> ah
[02:18] <cprofitt> they do not allow other corps to use it... but bodhi would not be the entity donating the resources
[02:18] <bodhizazen> It is easy to form a LLC
[02:18] <cprofitt> its creating a shadow company...
[02:18] <bodhizazen> I do not understand why we, the UCLP is doing something different from say wiki team
[02:19] <bodhizazen> from my understanding Canonical claims copyright on materials published on the wiki =)
[02:19] <bodhizazen> so why do we not want to do the same ?
[02:20] <bodhizazen> It has not stopped the wiki from being a success
[02:20] <cprofitt> bodhizazen, I think you are incorrect
[02:20] <cprofitt> they make several exceptions
[02:20] <bodhizazen> link cprofitt ?
[02:21] <bodhizazen> we can make similar exceptions, no ?
[02:21] <cprofitt> 1)  We have no link to a copyright that directly makes a claim about the wiki directly
[02:21] <bodhizazen> The make exceptions for content that is published elsewhere
[02:21] <cprofitt> the information we have is on www not wiki
[02:22] <bodhizazen> perhaps we should wait for an opinion from legal ie dinda :)
[02:22] <cprofitt> greg-g, do you have any input on how canonical licenses user contributed content on the wiki?
[02:22] <cprofitt> the legal from dinda only has to do with the inclusion of NC or not
[02:22] <cprofitt> not the assignment of ownership
[02:23] <greg-g> cprofitt: lemme double check on thing...
[02:23] <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 :)
[02:23] <cprofitt> thanks
[02:24] <bodhizazen> Unless others wish to contribute and assume what I perceive as risk =)
[02:24] <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
[02:24] <cprofitt> asking
[02:24] <bodhizazen> I do not see that as stifling =)
[02:24] <greg-g> cprofitt: so, wiki.u.c only says "© 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.
[02:25] <bodhizazen> wikipedia has similar agreements and is not stifled
[02:25] <cprofitt> wikipedia?
[02:25] <greg-g> bodhizazen: similar agreements to what?
[02:25] <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
[02:25] <cprofitt> greg-g, that is what I thought... Canonical has not asked me to sign any agreement to relinquish my ownership
[02:25] <bodhizazen> what is wrong with that ^^
[02:26] <bodhizazen> if it is good enough for FSF it is good enough for me
[02:26] <greg-g> bodhizazen: that isn't what Wikipedia does (to the best of my knowledge)
[02:26] <bodhizazen> FSF then =)
[02:26] <greg-g> heh, ok
[02:26] <cprofitt> publishing under CC:BY-SA-NC and asking them to give up ownership is much further than the FSF would ever go
[02:26] <greg-g> cprofitt: right, I should ping dinda about that
[02:26] <cprofitt> the FSF would never force NC
[02:26] <bodhizazen> but greg-g informed us that is exactly what the FSF does
[02:27] <cprofitt> the FSF does not publish under NC
[02:27] <cprofitt> they allow commercial use
[02:27] <cprofitt> Stallman would kill them if they prohibited commercial use
[02:27] <bodhizazen> they ask people to sign away copyright +)
[02:27] <cprofitt> that they do...
[02:27] <bodhizazen> which is what we are discussing
[02:27] <cprofitt> but they do NOT publish under NC
[02:28] <bodhizazen> the NC is a separate issue
[02:28] <cprofitt> there are other reasons that FSF asks for ownership, to my knowledge, and we have none of them
[02:28] <bodhizazen> and one we are waiting on to hear from on
[02:28] <cprofitt> bodhizazen, for me the two issues are not sep.
[02:29] <cprofitt> I would not sign over my rights to an organization that was going to publish under a restrictive license
[02:29] <cprofitt> so for me the two are linked
[02:29] <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
[02:29] <bodhizazen> Well, as I do not know where we are going with NC as of yet
[02:29] <bodhizazen> what can I say ?
[02:30] <cprofitt> and they take on defense as well if I am not mistaken greg-g
[02:31] <bodhizazen> The reason I want to take on ownership is because I do not want to be involved in a lawsuit =)
[02:31] <cprofitt> which they could not do if they were not the owner
[02:31] <greg-g> cprofitt: yeah, and that too
[02:31] <cprofitt> which is the reverse of why the FSF does bodhizazen
[02:31] <cprofitt> they WANT to defend GPL license code
[02:31] <cprofitt> they do not want to avoid a legal fight
[02:31] <bodhizazen> yea, well our goal / reasons for wanting copyright differ =)
[02:31] <cprofitt> your seeking to avoid a legal issue is not solved by the assignment of ownership
[02:32] <bodhizazen> I am not looking for "solved"
[02:32] <bodhizazen> there is no such thing
[02:32] <cprofitt> so asking for it is disingenuous or misguides based on what I know
[02:32] <bodhizazen> I am looking for as good as it can be =)
[02:33] <bodhizazen> I do not want the headaches of having an author demand we remove content
[02:33] <cprofitt> good as it can be for you is CC:BY-* with the author retaining ownership of the copyright
[02:34] <bodhizazen> and we then have to remove content because we do not have copyrights
[02:34] <cprofitt> them transferring it to UCLP or a shadow LLC does not mitigate the risk of a legal battle any further
[02:34] <cprofitt> sigh
[02:34] <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.
[02:34] <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
[02:34] <cprofitt> they can dispute the copyright assignment and make the same demands
[02:34] <cprofitt> both demands would be equally baseless
[02:35] <bodhizazen> thanks greg-g :)
[02:35] <cprofitt> bodhizazen, it makes their case no more difficult...
[02:35] <bodhizazen> do you have a link ?
[02:35] <cprofitt> their cases are equally faulty
[02:35] <bodhizazen> in whose opinion cprofitt ?
[02:35] <greg-g> bodhizazen: me or cprofitt ? and a link to what?
[02:35] <bodhizazen> your greg
[02:36] <cprofitt> bodhizazen, in my opinion
[02:36] <greg-g> If the work is licensed under a CC license (sans NC) you can host it on your site. Period.
[02:37] <cprofitt> while it is only my opinion... I would encourage you to seek legal advice if you feel the need
[02:37] <bodhizazen> Well, therein lies a potential problem
[02:37] <bodhizazen> we may or may not need to go -NC
[02:37] <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?
[02:37] <bodhizazen> we are waiting for a legal opinion
[02:37] <greg-g> the only reason I say sans NC is because NC create ambiguity with what the definition of "commericial" is.
[02:37] <bodhizazen> and once we get an opinion we will need to discuss it
[02:37] <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
[02:37] <cprofitt> we have not asked for legal opinion on ownership
[02:38] <pleia2> er, I meant copyright
[02:38] <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.
[02:38] <bodhizazen> cprofitt: you are going in circles =)
[02:38] <pleia2> greg-g: ah ok
[02:38] <bodhizazen> We asked a legal opinion on -NC
[02:38] <cprofitt> bodhizazen, I am not going in circles... though you might perceive it as such
[02:38] <cprofitt> I can try to clarify
[02:38] <greg-g> pleia2: as long as you release it on your blog before you transfer ownership, that is. :)
[02:38] <bodhizazen> which will impact ownership
[02:38] <cprofitt> yes we asked for legal opinion on NC
[02:39] <pleia2> greg-g: hm, troublesome!
[02:39] <cprofitt> you are pushing for ownership
[02:39] <cprofitt> which I feel there is no need for
[02:39] <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.
[02:39] <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
[02:40] <pleia2> cprofitt: +1
[02:40] <cprofitt> you have used references to other projects that do that... but you do not have the same reasons...
[02:40] <bodhizazen> well your feelings on the issue do not invalidate the feelings of others, or mine =)
[02:40] <cprofitt> your reason is for your own legal protection
[02:40] <cprofitt> and that may or may not have any benefit from copyright ownership
[02:40] <bodhizazen> Well that is a reality if it is my server =)
[02:40] <cprofitt> if you do not gain any benefit then there is no reason to pursue it
[02:40] <cprofitt> unless you have other reasons you have not shared with us
[02:40] <bodhizazen> now if the UCLP would like to purchase a VPS ....
[02:41] <cprofitt> you are free to withdraw your donation of resources from the UCLP if you feel you must
[02:41] <bodhizazen> I am not trying to be difficult here
[02:41] <cprofitt> but the UCLP does not have to do as you say just because you contributed them to the project
[02:42] <bodhizazen> but I am trying to understand and be comfortable with these decisions
[02:42] <bodhizazen> and you can not claim to have an unbiased opinion either cprofitt +)
[02:42] <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
[02:43] <bodhizazen> I would like to see this issue discussed more
[02:43] <cprofitt> that may also impact the willingness of others to contribute
[02:43] <cprofitt> we can discuss it.
[02:43] <cprofitt> I I hope you are open to the thoughts and opinions of the group
[02:43] <bodhizazen> that is not such a great arguement cprofitt
[02:43] <cprofitt> and in a manner that does not carry an implied threat of taking your ball and going home
[02:44] <bodhizazen> the UCLP needs to make a decision on these issues and I am sure we will have disagreements
[02:44] <cprofitt> if the assignment of copyright aids in protecting you and your family I would have no issue with it.
[02:44] <bodhizazen> and we are waiting for an opinion from Canonical
[02:44] <bodhizazen> which may either make the discussion moot
[02:44] <bodhizazen> or complicate it =)
[02:44] <cprofitt> if it does not have any value to such protection then I would not be for it for the reasons you have expressed
[02:45] <cprofitt> we are waiting for an opinion from Canonical on NC
[02:45] <bodhizazen> And if canonnoical required -NC
[02:45] <cprofitt> their desire for its use or not
[02:45] <bodhizazen> what then ?
[02:45] <cprofitt> if Canonical requires NC that makes your desire for transfer of ownership more troublesome in my opinion
[02:45] <bodhizazen> Are you then going to pull out of the project because you do not get the license you want ?
[02:46] <bodhizazen> what about others ?
[02:46] <bodhizazen> Well you are entitled to your opinion
[02:46] <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
[02:46] <bodhizazen> and I am entitled to mine =)
[02:46] <cprofitt> are you going to pull out because you do not get the one you want?
[02:46] <cprofitt> I have expressed an opinion about which license I feel is best...
[02:47] <cprofitt> not the one I want
[02:47] <cprofitt> despite your accusation that I have some hidden interest - I do not have a personal interest.
[02:47] <bodhizazen> there are many who have a strong opinion on this issue
[02:47] <cprofitt> there may be...
[02:47] <cprofitt> but let me ask you bluntly...
[02:47] <bodhizazen> thus the issue needs to be reviewed and discussed
[02:48] <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
[02:48] <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?
[02:48] <bodhizazen> That
[02:49] <bodhizazen> and I want to see some structure in place for how to resolve potential conflicts on content
[02:49] <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?
[02:49] <bodhizazen> developed by the UCLP
[02:49] <cprofitt> we have a structure -- though it needs to be stronger
[02:49] <cprofitt> we have a board currently
[02:50] <bodhizazen> that and we need to have some structure
[02:50] <cprofitt> it may not be as strong as you like, but we do have a structure
[02:50] <bodhizazen> Well, there has been sharp disagreement even on the governing board on this issue
[02:50] <cprofitt> I would like an answer to the question
[02:50] <cprofitt> boards can have disagreements
[02:50] <bodhizazen> To be honest I am not sure what will happen if we are requested to go -NC
[02:51] <cprofitt> what about the transfer of ownership question bodhizazen
[02:51] <cprofitt> if you gain no additional legal protection would you still push for it?
[02:51] <cprofitt> if there are other reasons I would like to be able to consider those
[02:51] <bodhizazen> My interests, as the owner of the server, are to divorce myself from as many legal hassles as possible =)
[02:52] <bodhizazen> That is not the same as saying I am unwilling to assume some risk
[02:52] <cprofitt> I understand that...
[02:52] <bodhizazen> or that I am pulling the server =)
[02:52] <bodhizazen> My interests as a UCLP member are to see these issues resolved amicably
[02:53] <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
[02:53] <cprofitt> I want you to be protected...
[02:53] <cprofitt> and we have a different understanding of what protects you so that needs to be resolved via legal advice - not from Canonical
[02:53] <bodhizazen> I think not cprofitt , however ...
[02:54] <bodhizazen> I do not think I understand what will happen if we are requested to go -NC
[02:54] <cprofitt> what is your question in that regard?
[02:55] <bodhizazen> Well there will be a problem
[02:55] <cprofitt> I am still under the opinion that if we are asked to use NC that ownership would not help you...
[02:55] <bodhizazen> as some people are not happy with the potential for -NC
[02:55] <cprofitt> it in fact could hurt you...
[02:55] <bodhizazen> It could
[02:55] <cprofitt> as you would be the entity that would have to defend it
[02:55] <bodhizazen> I am not sure =)
[02:56] <cprofitt> if the author still owned the copyright they would have to defend it... or pursue the entity using it commercially
[02:56] <cprofitt> the use of NC can be overcome, IMHO, if we do not ask for a transfer of ownership
[02:56] <cprofitt> greg-g, are you still with us
[02:57] <bodhizazen> My other question is -
[02:57] <bodhizazen> what does the rest of the Ubuntu Community do with licensing ?
[02:57] <cprofitt> let me clarify... though I would want another opinion...
[02:58] <greg-g> cprofitt: I can be< iwas letting you all work through that stuff
[02:58] <bodhizazen> we look to the community for so much, why are we not looking at how the wiki does this ?
[02:58] <bodhizazen> I think wiki is probably closest to us
[02:58] <cprofitt> if we publish using NC but the author retains copyright... they could use their contribution for commercial gain
[02:58] <cprofitt> but not those of others...
[02:59] <cprofitt> bodhizazen, I would love to know how the wiki handles user submissions, but there is no clear evidence of what they do
[02:59] <bodhizazen> I know the answer - but all the same
[02:59] <greg-g> cprofitt: correct re: NC and author retained copyright
[02:59] <cprofitt> greg-g, thanks... that is what I thought
[02:59] <bodhizazen> why are we arguing this if we have not know how wiki does it =)
[02:59] <cprofitt> bodhizazen, you know the answer to how the wiki licenses contributions?
[03:00] <bodhizazen> no, lol
[03:00] <cprofitt> because we have to consider the license regardless of how the wiki does it...
[03:00] <bodhizazen> wish I did though
[03:00] <cprofitt> it may guide us, but does not alter the fact that we have to make a decision
[03:01] <cprofitt> we do know how wikipedia does it though
[03:01] <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
[03:01] <bodhizazen> I appreciate the information and perspective I have been given
[03:02] <bodhizazen> link for wikipedia ?
[03:02] <cprofitt> Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details.
[03:02] <cprofitt> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
[03:02] <cprofitt> bottom of page
[03:03] <cprofitt> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License
[03:03] <cprofitt> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use
[03:04] <cprofitt> bodhizazen, to be clear... what conflict of interest do you feel I have?
[03:06] <bodhizazen> I am concerned, from comments made and strong opinions, that people intend to personally profit from this project
[03:06] <bodhizazen> that was not a goal of the Project =)
[03:06] <bodhizazen> and I am not sure I am completely comfortable with it
[03:07] <pleia2> I think people are just concern about giving up their rights
[03:07] <pleia2> concerned
[03:07] <bodhizazen> but the do give up rights =)
[03:07] <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
[03:08] <cprofitt> bodhizazen, if they hold the copyright they do not give up their rights
[03:08] <bodhizazen> we are asking them to give up the right to dictate how we use their contributions
[03:08] <pleia2> yes, they give up *some* rights, but not all
[03:08] <cprofitt> no, we are asking them to accept our use as CC:BY-SA
[03:08] <bodhizazen> But if they publish on our server we are not giving them the right to remove their content ?
[03:08] <bodhizazen> or are we ?
[03:08] <cprofitt> but they would retain their rights
[03:09] <cprofitt> no, we would not be giving them the right to remove the content
[03:09] <cprofitt> but they would choose to publish CC:BY-SA
[03:09] <bodhizazen> so they are loosing some rights then =)
[03:09] <pleia2> of course some, but not all
[03:09] <cprofitt> some I will agree...
[03:09] <cprofitt> but if they transfer ownership they lose all
[03:09]  * pleia2 nods
[03:10] <bodhizazen> and some people will not like it if we need to go -NC ?
[03:11] <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
[03:12] <pleia2> they make an exception for themselves, which they can do since they have copyright
[03:12] <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
[03:12] <pleia2> right, I won't contribute if I'm required to make it NC and give up copyright
[03:12] <pleia2> that doesn't mean I *intend* to sell any of it
[03:13] <pleia2> but I want the flexibility to if I choose, I don't want to sign off all my rights to it
[03:14] <cprofitt> greg-g still there
[03:14] <cprofitt> I have another - thought
[03:14] <greg-g> go ahead
[03:15] <cprofitt> if the content is published under -NC
[03:15] <cprofitt> one can not charge for it
[03:15] <cprofitt> similar to the source code of Linux
[03:15] <cprofitt> but could one give the 'content' away but charge for their consulting to help deliver the content
[03:16] <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)
[03:16] <cprofitt> similar to the way RedHat and Canonical sell 'support'?
[03:16] <greg-g> cprofitt: certainly re: consulting
[03:16] <bodhizazen> +1 greg-g
[03:16] <cprofitt> so by going -NC we are really not preventing people from profiting from the material
[03:16] <bodhizazen> I think that is a very very common misunderstanding
[03:16] <cprofitt> we are just prohibiting them from selling the content
[03:17] <greg-g> well, yes and no
[03:17] <cprofitt> expand please
[03:17] <greg-g> this is why NC sucks, because it is up to intrerpretation of the copyright holder/user
[03:18] <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
[03:19] <greg-g> blatent violations, like selling a bound book of -NC texts, is obvious, but there are many grey areas.
[03:20] <cprofitt> perhaps we should consider the GFDL
[03:20] <cprofitt> http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html
[03:21] <cprofitt> I understand greg-g
[03:21] <cprofitt> so NC would really complicate things for us...
[03:22] <greg-g> no, I suggest CC:BY-SA as that is the most commonly used license for documentation and other wiki-style projects
[03:22] <greg-g> there is a reason why wikipedia transitioned away from the GFDL
[03:22] <greg-g> but that is just my (obviously biased) opinion
[03:22] <cprofitt> ok
[03:23] <cprofitt> and for my benefit... what is your legal background...
[03:23] <cprofitt> I thought it was lawyer... but I know I was incorrect in that memory
[03:24] <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.
[03:24] <greg-g> but other than that, nothing, no law school, only one class taught by a lawyer.
[03:25] <cprofitt> so... probably better than a lawyer...
[03:25] <cprofitt> :-)
[03:25] <greg-g> heh :)
[03:25] <cprofitt> how does the UofM license?
[03:25] <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
[03:26] <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)
[03:26] <cprofitt> and the author retains ownership
[03:27] <cprofitt> ?
[03:27] <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.
[03:28] <greg-g> did that make sense?
[03:28] <cprofitt> are not the professors working for the university? or is that a contract stipulation?
[03:28] <greg-g> that is a contract stipulation at most universities.
[03:28] <cprofitt> It does make sense... and goes in hand with what I know about things like this
[03:28] <greg-g> so they can move universities and take their work with them
[03:28] <cprofitt> I was embroiled in a little tiff with my employer a few years back...
[03:28] <greg-g> yuck
[03:28] <cprofitt> and backed up my side with several legal decisions in the state court system
[03:29] <cprofitt> the tif happend prior to the start of work...
[03:29] <greg-g> gotcha
[03:29] <cprofitt> when they pushed their incorrect assumptions and said they would pursue legal action and not sign an agreement about that
[03:30] <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
[03:30] <greg-g> right right, good job being on top of it.
[03:31] <cprofitt> it cost them $1200 to have me do the job
[03:31] <cprofitt> since they had to buy Visual Studio
[03:31] <cprofitt> and they had to relieve me of some of my normal daily duties so I had time to do it on the job
[03:31] <cprofitt> but that is where I did a lot of research
[03:32] <greg-g> nice.
[03:32] <cprofitt> since that time ANY program I wrote that I intended to use at my job was published GPL
[03:32] <cprofitt> and then downloaded by me from the site I published it on
[03:32] <cprofitt> and all work was done on my equipment on my time
[03:32] <cprofitt> and to their knowledge it was a utility I downloaded
[03:32] <cprofitt> stupid really
[03:34] <greg-g> wow, sounds like a lot of monkeying around
[03:34] <cprofitt> yeah
[03:34] <cprofitt> I no longer offer to do any programming for them
[03:34] <greg-g> I bet not :)
[03:35] <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
[03:35] <cprofitt> this is a logged channel I should be a little less...
[03:35] <cprofitt> open about this...
[03:35] <cprofitt> kill the logbot
[03:35]  * cprofitt takes out knife
[03:36] <greg-g> :)
[03:36] <cprofitt> hey doctormo
[03:36] <doctormo> Hello cprofitt
[03:36] <doctormo> hello greg-g
[03:37] <cprofitt> doctormo, I hate to ask this...
[03:37] <cprofitt> but how do you plan on profiting from the UCLP project?
[03:37] <doctormo> :-)
[03:38] <greg-g> hiya doctormo
[03:38] <greg-g> doctormo: and yeah, I'll work on that document tomorrow, I was on a road trip until about 3 hours ago :)
[03:38] <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.
[03:39] <cprofitt> so you would not be charging for the course material but for your time as an instructor?
[03:39] <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.
[03:39] <doctormo> cprofitt: Sure, doesn't make the enterprise any less comercial
[03:40] <cprofitt> true...
[03:40] <cprofitt> but the definition of that is not solid
[03:40] <cprofitt> just as Canonical can charge for support...
[03:40] <doctormo> Which is one of the technical problems
[03:40] <cprofitt> -NC might allow consulting fees...
[03:41] <cprofitt> but I agree with the issues with the vague nature of -NC
[03:43] <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.
[03:52] <cprofitt> doctormo, one more question
[03:52] <cprofitt> do you plan on only using your contributions or those of others in this manner?
[03:55] <cprofitt> doctormo, you still here?
[03:59] <cprofitt> doctormo, it was expressed that Canonical may prefer that we license under -NC
[03:59] <cprofitt> but dinda has sent an email to Canonical legal to clarify that for us
[04:00] <doctormo> cprofitt: Yes I'm still here
[04:00] <cprofitt> k
[04:00] <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.
[04:00] <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
[04:01] <cprofitt> I agree... if we publish -NC they nor their partners would be able to use the content we produce
[04:02] <cprofitt> but I was really interested in clarifying your use case...
[04:02] <cprofitt> were you looking to use only your own contributions or those of others as well?
[04:03] <doctormo> What would be the point of trying to form a community if not for the benifit of shared work?
[04:04] <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
[04:04] <doctormo> cprofitt: Of course, I could use what ever I made with impunity to the license I give it here
[04:04] <cprofitt> well there has been a suggestion that authors would be asked to transfer ownership to UCLP
[04:05] <cprofitt> which impacts that
[04:09] <doctormo> cprofitt: That's not possible, ULPC isn't an incorperated entity.
[04:09] <cprofitt> we hashed that out as well...
[04:10] <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
[04:11] <cprofitt> I am not a legal expert, but I did not see a transfer of ownership helping to eliminate legal risk
[04:13] <doctormo> cprofitt: Generally transfere of ownership is a no no with copyright, not least because it's not legal in Germany
[04:13] <cprofitt> I question the legality in the US as well...
[04:13] <cprofitt> I know it can be done, but doing so may require expensive lawyers
[04:14] <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.
[04:15] <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.
[04:15] <cprofitt> I would agree with that
[04:15] <doctormo> The health of contributions and participation is very important, especially for a brand new team
[04:15] <cprofitt> but I have not thought long and hard on it
[04:17] <cprofitt> It is definitely something the board needs to address...
[04:17] <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.
[04:17] <cprofitt> despite the previous decision to go with CC:BY-SA that was done prior to the board I think...
[04:17] <cprofitt> so we many need to adopt a structure... and then finalize the license in an 'official' sense
[04:18] <cprofitt> what if authors were allowed to choose the the CC: license of their choice?
[04:18] <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.
[04:19] <cprofitt> I believe we are all thinking about the groups best interest
[04:19] <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)
[04:19] <cprofitt> though I do acknowledge bodhi's need for legal separation
[04:19] <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.
[04:20] <cprofitt> doctormo, I agree...
[04:20] <cprofitt> but what about allowing authors to choose a CC license
[04:20] <cprofitt> ah... I see...
[04:21] <cprofitt> so we should avoid an author being able to choose -NC
[04:21] <cprofitt> or it limits what can be done with it...
[04:21] <doctormo> I think we should, but I think bodi is fearful that doing that will incur the wrath of Canonical.
[04:21] <cprofitt> not following on how having them translated would be commercial
[04:22] <cprofitt> what about 'pointing' people to NC works...
[04:22] <cprofitt> not including them in the course, but using them as a professor would a text book
[04:23] <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.
[04:24] <cprofitt> that is what I thought
[04:25] <cprofitt> actually -- it is Montana
[04:25] <cprofitt> not east coast
[04:25] <doctormo> greg-g would be a better at being sure about that
[13:45] <cprofitt> good morning folks
[13:45] <pleia2> morning cprofitt
[13:56] <cprofitt> pleia2, https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Learning/Notes/06182009
[13:56] <cprofitt> good morning
[13:58] <pleia2> cprofitt: can you move that to Agenda/06182009 so we can be consistant?
[13:59] <cprofitt> it is not a meeting...
[13:59] <pleia2> oh
[13:59] <cprofitt> it is just an impromptu discussion...
[13:59] <cprofitt> so I was not sure we should 'meeting' it
[13:59] <pleia2> actually and Agenda wasn't where we put the real logs
[13:59] <pleia2> hm
[13:59] <cprofitt> but I did want others to be able to see the conversations around the issue.
[13:59] <cprofitt> transparency
[14:00] <pleia2> sounds good :)
[15:28] <cprofitt> dinda, any thing back from legal?
[15:42] <doctormo> pleia2, bodhizazen: morning
[15:42] <pleia2> doctormo: hey
[15:45] <doctormo> pleia2: I got an update last night from cprofitt about further discussions that went on about licensing.
[15:46] <pleia2> doctormo: did he send you a link to the logs?
[15:46] <doctormo> pleia2: yes
[15:46] <pleia2> ok
[15:46] <doctormo> sounded quite heated at times
[15:46] <bodhizazen> hye everyone :)
[15:48] <pleia2> mostly I was just trying to understand the issues
[15:48] <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
[15:49] <doctormo> wrt?
[15:50] <pleia2> arguing over NC, copyright, and legal problems
[15:50] <pleia2> I don't know enough about any of it to be productive in the conversation anyway :)
[15:51] <doctormo> N I mean what does WRT mean
[15:53] <pleia2> oh "with regard to"
[15:53] <bodhizazen> I agree pleia2 , IMO these discussions are :
[15:53] <bodhizazen> 1. based on insufficeint information
[15:53] <bodhizazen> 2. way too heated
[15:53] <bodhizazen> we need to find a more productive way to discuss and resolve the issues
[15:54] <bodhizazen> demands and threats are probably not so productive , and the seem to come from all sides ;)
[15:54] <doctormo> bodhizazen: I agree, but I'd change 1. to, people with information unable to deliver it in a recognisable way
[15:54] <bodhizazen> +1 on that too doctormo
[15:55] <pleia2> well, we still lack an answer from canonical about NC
[15:55] <bodhizazen> I think the information needs to be discussed in a way people learn and understand
[15:55] <bodhizazen> I saw we wait for a reply from canonical :)
[15:55] <bodhizazen> it is a critical piece of the puzzel
[15:56]  * pleia2 nods
[15:56] <bodhizazen> Although rational , informational discussions are helpful
[15:56] <bodhizazen> such as, for example
[15:57] <bodhizazen> 1. what options do we have for license and what do other community teams handle this issue ?
[15:57] <bodhizazen> :)
[15:57] <bodhizazen> soeey that was a run on #1
[16:00] <doctormo> bodhizazen: That's reallly too questions
[16:00] <doctormo> two*
[16:01] <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.
[16:03] <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.
[16:12] <cprofitt> I think we have two issues that require clarification:
[16:12] <cprofitt> 1)  What does Canonical prefer? What will they accept?
[16:13] <cprofitt> 2)  What steps can bodhizazen take to protect himself from a legal issue regarding his contribution of the server / hosting / domain resources
[16:14] <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
[16:14] <doctormo> cprofitt: It's fairly certain that we're waiting on 1) and 2 is something of a lawyer answer. Protection from what exactly?
[16:15] <cprofitt> doctormo, if a person decides to go after the 'website' for hosting content -- that would be bodhi
[16:15] <cprofitt> as he is the legal 'owner' of the hardware and current domain name
[16:16] <doctormo> cprofitt: For copyright infringement or trademark problems?
[16:16] <cprofitt> both and any other issues
[16:17] <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.
[16:17] <doctormo> But best is a lawyer
[16:18] <cprofitt> that would be one possibility...
[16:18] <cprofitt> but does not remove possible litigation against bodhizazen
[16:18] <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
[16:18] <doctormo> I know, it's a reduction in complexity when ity comes to fighting such things, I mean safe harbour is usually enough.
[16:19] <cprofitt> then the LLC could be liable, but not bodhizazen
[16:20] <cprofitt> gotta run to meeting
[16:20] <cprofitt> bbiaf
[16:24] <doctormo> Thanks bodhizazen, pleia2, I think we have a solid course of action: wait
[17:42] <dinda> cprofitt: doctormo_ pleia2 et al:  I have something of an answer from our legal team
[17:42] <pleia2> great
[17:42] <doctormo_> dinda: great
[17:43] <dinda> unfortunately, as with most legal things, I'm not sure it makes things any clearer for what you folks decide to do,. . .
[17:43] <dinda> first:  no opinion on licensing, either is fine, no conflicts
[17:44] <dinda> second: they recommend the project get some legal advice from SFLC
[17:44] <dinda> we can effect an introduction
[17:45] <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. . .
[17:46] <dinda> I think he was going to work with bodhizazen on that issue already??
[17:46] <pleia2> I believe so
[17:46] <cprofitt> SFLC?
[17:46] <doctormo> dinda: Aye, that's an issue for bodhizazen and other sys-admins,
[17:46] <dinda> kewl, then bodhizazen already knows all the issues involved in that
[17:47] <doctormo> cprofitt: Software Freedom Law Center
[17:47] <doctormo> cprofitt: The FSF spin off group
[17:47] <dinda> Software Freedom Legal Counsel - i believe
[17:47] <cprofitt> dinda, that would remove some of Bodhi's concerns if Canonical hosted it.
[17:47]  * pleia2 nods
[17:47] <dinda> cprofitt: yes but the trade offs are in responsiveness and sys-admin access
[17:47] <doctormo> Although what would he do with the investment he's already made?
[17:47] <cprofitt> dinda, true... true
[17:48] <pleia2> dinda: thank you :) this gives us a lot to discuss
[17:48] <cprofitt> he would likely just use the server for UBT items if Canonical hosted it.
[17:48] <doctormo> I wonder if I can further wine and dine jpds ;-)
[17:48] <cprofitt> I appreciate the information dinda
[17:48] <cprofitt> we will have to discuss it more...
[17:49] <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?
[17:49] <cprofitt> that is correct doctormo
[17:50] <cprofitt> updates our notes - https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Learning/Notes/06182009
[17:50] <dinda> doctormo: correct
[17:50] <cprofitt> I have to run to another meeting... bbiaf
[17:52] <doctormo> Thanks dinda, that clears up some of the issues we've been waiting on
[17:53] <dinda> doctormo: good, we didn't want to be a blocker on any of this really
[17:54] <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?
[17:57] <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. . .
[17:58] <doctormo> dinda: As do we, one of the topics that I'll bring up soon is quality control
[17:58] <dinda> doctormo: but given our current workload and obligations to existing training partners we simply don't have time to contribute
[17:58] <doctormo> dinda: I'll keep in mind that your open minded about it though, this would be the correct idea?
[17:58] <dinda> doctormo:  haven't had time to even think about it, honestly :)
[17:59] <dinda> doctormo: my heart is inthe community since that's where I came from but my bank account is fueled elsewhere ;)
[18:01]  * txwikinger_work understands the bank account aspect
[18:05]  * bodhizazen reads up
[18:05] <bodhizazen> dinda: I have no problem if canonical wants to bring server into data center
[18:05] <bodhizazen> up to now they have not offered is all
[18:06] <bodhizazen> My question would be on system admin / access to server, I do not know how that works
[18:06] <dinda> bodhizazen: the problem is admin access
[18:07] <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
[18:07] <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
[18:08] <dinda> bodhizazen: I have no idea how they handle forums or other shared access sites with community
[18:10] <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
[18:10] <bodhizazen> which is why I provided =)
[18:11] <bodhizazen> It seems they may now have resources , and there are advantages to that
[18:11] <doctormo> dinda: From the LoCo aspect I know plenty of LoCo groups (including mine) that host elsewhere
[18:12] <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
[18:13] <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
[18:13] <dinda> bodhizazen: we still don't have those resources.. .
[18:13] <bodhizazen> I am "OK" at running servers
[18:13] <dinda> bodhizazen: the issue came up when you asked for the subdomain
[18:14] <dinda> those have to be controlled by us for security, etc, as I'm being told, thus elmo stepping in
[18:14] <bodhizazen> so by data center then are you suggesting we move my current server physically to a different data center ?
[18:14] <dinda> bodhizazen: good question, no idea what that may mean
[18:14] <bodhizazen> I guess I am not following what your are proposing then in terms of server / subdomain
[18:14] <bodhizazen> Ah , LOL
[18:15]  * doctormo wonders if ubuntu-learning.com is free
[18:15] <dinda> remember none of this is an issue if you want to keep the URL say "bodhi'sradubuntulearning.com"
[18:16] <bodhizazen> right now I have 2 domains
[18:16] <dinda> doctormo: it's not as a matter of fact, they're about to get a nice take down notice
[18:16] <bodhizazen> bodhizazen.net
[18:16] <bodhizazen> ufbt.net
[18:16] <bodhizazen> could add learn.* to either or register a new domain
[18:16] <bodhizazen> not sure if the group would  prefer :
[18:17] <bodhizazen> 1. learn.bodhizazen.net
[18:17] <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
[18:17] <bodhizazen> 2. learn.ufbt.net
[18:17] <bodhizazen> 3. learn.ubuntu.com
[18:17] <bodhizazen> or 4. donate $ for new domain
[18:17] <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
[18:17] <txwikinger_work> well.. it maybe makes sense to make it a virtual server if root access is an issue
[18:18] <doctormo> dinda: whois says ubuntu-learning.com isn't found, hmm
[18:18] <txwikinger_work> there should not be any issue to have root access to a virtual server
[18:18] <bodhizazen> depends on the paranoia of the sysadmin and location of the server txwikinger :)
[18:19] <txwikinger_work> bodhizazen: why?
[18:19] <bodhizazen> root access on a VPS can certainly be abused =)
[18:19] <txwikinger_work> well... maybe we should shut down the Internet, since it can easily be abused ;)
[18:20] <dinda> txwikinger_work: it's an issue, it's the same in the virtual labs we host in our data centre, believe me
[18:20] <txwikinger_work> well.. I run virtual servers in several different data-centres
[18:21] <bodhizazen> lol txwikinger_work that is a bit extreem
[18:21] <bodhizazen> do you give root access to people you do not know ?
[18:21] <txwikinger_work> bodhizazen: Well.. that is what the German government tries to do ;)
[18:21] <txwikinger_work> bodhizazen: Well, they give me root access and they do not knwo me
[18:22] <dinda> bodhizazen: and then there's the whole Moodle aspect of things which has been a lot less fun than I want
[18:22] <bodhizazen> And if one of your VPS went AWOL would you not take action ?
[18:22] <bodhizazen> use you root powers then on your VPS to start trouble and see what happens to your VPS =)
[18:22] <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
[18:23] <txwikinger_work> well.. they probably stop my VPS and tell me off :D
[18:23] <bodhizazen> that was my point txwikinger_work
[18:23] <txwikinger_work> Well.. I had a case where a client of mine was hacked
[18:23] <txwikinger_work> they sent them an e-mail
[18:24] <txwikinger_work> the client then asked me to fix it
[18:24] <txwikinger_work> So, no big deal
[18:24] <dinda> txwikinger_work: it was a big deal when several of the canonical hosted loco sites got hacked
[18:24] <bodhizazen> sigh
[18:25] <txwikinger_work> they did dinda?
[18:25] <bodhizazen> sometimes I feel the tone on this channel is too confrontational
[18:25] <bodhizazen> not very ubutnu of us
[18:25] <txwikinger_work> Did not hear about that. We host our (quasi-Loco) on our own virtual server
[18:26] <txwikinger_work> bodhizazen: When? at the moment?
[18:26] <dinda> txwikinger: yeah, that's what caught the eye of elmo when he heard about this group trying to get a redirect
[18:26] <dinda> bodhizazen: it's not meant to be - at least from me
[18:27] <bodhizazen> in general txwikinger_work
[18:27] <bodhizazen> and yes your comments did seem a bit out of line
[18:27] <txwikinger_work> Hmm.. I seem to have not enough time to be here then... did not notice that  ;)
[18:28] <txwikinger_work> My comments? What did I say that was confrontational?
[18:29] <dinda> Okay, so next 'official' meeting is set for 22 june
[18:29]  * dinda goes to put on her calendar
[18:29] <bodhizazen> I would rather not discuss it txwikinger_work
[18:29] <bodhizazen> suffice it to say that is the way you came across
[18:29] <bodhizazen> although I may be over sensative
[18:30] <txwikinger_work> bodhizazen: Well I am sorry, I did not mean to offend anybody
[18:30] <dinda> bodhizazen: I think he was just showing some examples, didn't seem out of line to me
[18:30] <bodhizazen> thank you , I will try to be less sensitive as well
[18:30] <dinda> quick someone tell a joke!
[18:31] <dinda> two astronauts walk into a bar. . .
[18:31] <doctormo> I can not see offence or anything that breaks the CoC
[18:31] <bodhizazen> I am one of the paranoid types and take security fairly serious is all
[18:32] <txwikinger_work> bodhizazen: I have no quarrels with that
[18:32] <bodhizazen> But as a larger issue, this channel does not always seem like fun and games
[18:32] <bodhizazen> and an observation
[18:32] <bodhizazen> *as*
[18:33] <doctormo> bodhizazen: Indeed, not everything can be fun and games unfortunatly.
[18:33] <bodhizazen> Now some of that may be my falult, and I will work on that
[18:33] <bodhizazen> but ...
[18:34] <bodhizazen> doctormo: true, but there are more and less productive ways to work through the issues and I think this team could improve
[18:35] <doctormo> bodhizazen: Of course, we're not machine men with machine minds and machine hearts (10 points for getting that quote)
[18:42] <dinda> bodhizazen: chalk it up to growing pains, once the baseline is established then the social stuff comes
[21:17] <cprofitt> greg-g, thanks for your assistance last night
[21:20]  * dthacker-work wanders in
[21:21]  * cprofitt waves
[21:21] <cprofitt> gotta go soon, but just hanging here until it is time to go
[21:21] <dthacker-work> on a break between projects at work.
[21:21]  * cprofitt smiles
[21:21] <dthacker-work> anything exciting happening?
[21:21] <dthacker-work> I'll probably be out of pocket until Saturday
[21:22] <cprofitt> this should catch you up - https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Learning/Notes/06182009
[21:22] <dthacker-work> awesome. thanks!
[21:22] <cprofitt> np
[21:27] <cprofitt> gotta run guys... cya later
[21:38] <dthacker-work> well that's as clear as mud.    I think I'll concentrate on coursework.
[21:39] <dthacker-work> type at you all on Saturday.
[22:35] <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?
[22:36] <pleia2> greg-g: Canonical got back to us today, they are letting us move forward w/o NC :)
[22:37] <greg-g> wee
[22:37] <bodhizazen> I had a suggestion on another channel =)
[22:37] <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
[22:38] <bodhizazen> can we allow authors the option of either BY-SA with or without -NC ?
[22:38] <bodhizazen> authors can decide for him or herself ?
[22:41] <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.
[22:46] <DougieRichardson> evening all bodhizazen: do you mean letting contributers decide
[22:46] <bodhizazen> yes DougieRichardson
[22:47] <bodhizazen> That is the advice I recieved elsewhere
[22:47] <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
[22:47] <DougieRichardson> it would probably be better to decide and inform contributers of what license
[22:49] <pwnguin> how many courses is the project committing to?
[22:52] <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
[22:56] <pwnguin> on a related note
[22:56] <pwnguin> did anyone hear about instructables?
[23:01] <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.
[23:01] <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.
[23:01] <greg-g> s/project/document/
[23:02] <pwnguin> thats not quite right, but yes
[23:02] <pwnguin> they are incompatible