On Nov 29, 2007, at 10:48 AM, Patrick O'Keefe wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 23:37:02 -0600, Ed Gould
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
Well that is good news. But it is essentially worthless to the masses
(us). I still am vaguely suspicious of the idea that requirements are
the "property" of IBM. I don't remember signing anything (I do mean
*ANYTHING*) when I submitted requirements (personally or as a
requirements co-ordinator of GUIDE). How can IBM claim ownership?
...
I was refering to the database of SHARE requirements.
As Ed and Walt mentioned, IBM's requirements database
(which contains far more than just user group submissions)
is defintely not available.
*IF* that is indeed the case (I am not conceding that it is) then I
would think that it would either inhibit submission of requirements
or before any submission to SHARE they should be copyrighted to
protect the submitter. ...
Huh? Copyrighted by whom? Once a requirement has been
submitted to SHARE it becomes the property of SHARE (to do
with as it chooses). Once SHARE submits the requirement to IBM
it becomes the property of IBM. Why should it be otherwise?
And what is the submitter being protected from?
It was suggested on here that IBM owned all the requirements (after
they are submitted to them) and that is why they did not give out
access (hey I didn't suggest it but that was the statement). I was
just indicating if that were to be true then to get around that
"claim" is to copyright them by the author so IBM could not claim
ownership and SHARE could maintain a searchable Database without the
fear of IBMs' wrath.
... Also SHARE should make sure that each person
who submits requirements aware of the issue before submission.
...
And how should that be done? SHARE's requirements coordinators
can check SHARE's requirements database (as can the original
submitter) and not accept the submission if it is a dup, or suggest
the req be reworked before being subitted to IBM. Beyond that,
what can (or should) be done?
By putting on the requirement the verbiage that requirements are
owned by ...
IMO somebody *ELSE* should make sure that all requirements are
made
public so that ownership is kept with the submitter. What might be
practical is that a 3rd party copyright all requirements.
...
And what would that ownership achieve? If you are so proud of
your requirements, copyright them. But don't submit them through
a users group and then claim copyright infringment if something
similar gets given to IBM. And don't claim copyright infringment
if something similar makes into IBM's database.
Its NOT an ownership issue per se its access to them for research
that seems to be the issue here. If there were reasonable open
(searchable) database (a term it does not have to be a true database
it could be a flat file that has been indexed for example) lets not
get hung up here on definitions as I am sure someone is going to say
that inputting them into a "database" is going to cost major $. It
does not have to be DB2 or anything else like it, it just has to be
searchable. ADOBE offers free of charge a search engine that is
incorporated into their product, OR there are CHEAP search engines
that can do the same job.
Also reasonable means (to me) *ANY* SHARE member not just project
type people. We are *NOT* suggesting alter authority (of any kind)
just read for the average user.
The bottom line is the a "Requirement" is really just a suggestion or
request to IBM. If IBM chooses to implement something, and that
something does not address your original need you can complain
(for all the good that will do). How does ownership of the original
reqest alter that? IBM would be more enclined to implement the
req because the text of the request is copyrighted by you?
I don't think so.
Pat O'Keefe
Pat, again the issue is not ownership per se it is the readability of
such data. Quite often the discussion occurs that essentially says
either IBM has never heard of the suggestion or IBM says to submit a
requirement. There is no way to come back and say but it has been
submitted. Essentially to refute the claim. If one were to say
requirement #xxxx does request that a discussion can continue but
once IBM says it never occurred then the discussion is over and the
requester is unhappy (reasonably or not).
Ed
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
