Mirek, Astron, once again thanks for your input. We have changed the registration texts - some nice formatting and checkup with the OPEN KNOWLEDGE FOUNDATION still stands out.
Just wanted to say, perhaps you would like to take another try :) - I am really thankful for any comments! Cheers, Björn Am Mittwoch, 20. Juni 2012, 18:17:21 schrieb Björn Balazs: > Hi Astron, > > Am Dienstag, 19. Juni 2012, 02:11:27 schrieb Stefan Knorr: > > Hi Björn, > > > > > Concerning my motivation: it is not marketing. I care about Free > > > Software. > > > I think this service is simply another peace we need to solve the big > > > Free- Software-Puzzle. It does happen to legally belong to a company and > > > it might make money (tm) but most importantly it follows and serves > > > Free-Software principles. > > > > Making money is always a laudable goal for a business. ;) > > I simply wanted to make the point that this 'product' is not the way my > consultancy makes money. It is basically the result of my (mostly) voluntary > work in Free Software. As there was nothing out there, I decided to start a > new project, which I am OpenSourceing right now. To put it in the company > simply makes things (like handling money) easier for me. > > > > > What exactly is meant by "unless I stated something different before"? > > > > Does > > > > that mean I can put proprietary data on UserWeave as long as I've > > > > released > > > > it elsewhere under a proprietary license before I joined UserWeave? > > > > (I'm sure it doesn't, but given that this is a legally-binding > > > > agreement, > > > > this phrase should be worded differently or taken out altogether.) > > > > > > There is a potential long term business model (tm). The idea: people > > > that > > > want to use the service can pay for not having their data released and > > > published. This money shall be used to to finace the development and > > > hosting of the software under the best of Free Softwares principles. But > > > it will always be free of charge for projects working in the open. So > > > this "state"ment is meant to refer to this potential business model. I > > > will have to think about rephrasing it. I have been talking to some open > > > knowledge foundation guys before, perhaps they can help. > > > > Please do think about rephrasing it. For instance, if we upload (other > > people's) icons there, this will create a huge licensing issue for us. > > It can be hard to track down everyone who's worked on an icon and it > > will be even harder to convince them to relicense their icons "just" for > > research. > > > > > Maybe you could ask for people to use an "OSI-approved open source > > > > license"/"GNU-approved free license" instead and just default to CC-by? > > Thanks for pointing me to this misunderstanding. I actually do not want to > affect the license of things that get tested (e.g. Icons). People uploading > them should be aware that they need to have the right to use them. The whole > licensing issue should only affect things that get actually produced on > UserWeave, like surveys, personas etc. > > So sorry for the misunderstanding here. As it is FreeSoftware and I am not > really the best person for legal stuff - anyone around with a good idea how > to get this right? > > Hope that clarifies it all a bit! > > Cheers, > Björn > > > Astron. -- www.OpenUsability.org www.OpenSource-Usability-Labs.com -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected] Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/design/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
