> Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 20:54:51 -0400 > From: Matt Shaver <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Emc-developers] Radical Ideas > To: [email protected] > Message-ID: <20130611205451.3081519e@Matt> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > > On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 18:45:23 +0800 > "Paul Kelly" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 2.A Could you not just make (and document) every effort to contact the > > existing authors with an "If you object to this new licensing > > arrangement (which is fundamentally a holier than thou, close to > > public domain approach) then contact us within 6 months." Type > > approach, then release a set of sources under the new license... If > > anyone decides they object at a later date then 2.B applies to them > > and there will be no real consequences. > > No. Here is my reasoning: > Administrative procedure disagrees with you.
> > A. Let's assume that we know the name and address of every contributor. > There are no unknown contributors. We hire a private process server to > hand deliver a written notice of your proposal to all of the > contributors. Then what? > Proper service is key. Unanswered proper service is agreement to the claims in the served papers. > > B. Nothing obligates the recipients to open or read your message. > True See A. above - to show disagreement you MUST answer. > > C. Even if the recipients read your message, this places no > obligation on them to respond whether they agree or disagree with your > proposal. > see A and B above > > D. Their non-response does not affect their ability to defend their > copyright later on if desired. > Uh - their non-response obligates them as their non-response is agreement in fact. All of the points in the served papers become prima facie evidence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie This is the heart of administrative procedure. All of our courts live in this world. All of our statutes live in this world. > I'm not saying that polling the folks around here to ascertain what the > majority wants is a useless idea though. > > In a voluntary society the majority opinion is not important. The polling is not useless because if someone wants to volunteer to work on a popular project we need to know what the project would be. > Thanks, > Matt > > > > Stuart -- dos centavos ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows: Build for Windows Store. http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
