On Nov 29, 2007, at 1:12 PM, Tom Marchant wrote:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:28:02 -0600, Ed Gould wrote:
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
Go to http://www.copyright.gov/
As I understand it, at least in the USA, whenever you write
something it *is*
copyrighted. You do own the copyright to a requirement that you
write and
submit to IBM. Or your company does if you wrote it as part of
your job.
Perhaps you mean that when you submit a requirement that you should
explicitly authorize IBM to publish it in any manner that they see
fit.
--
Tom:
*IF* IBM is claiming ownership of SHARE requirements then either the
claim is incorrect or they are just bullying SHARE into acquiescence
(its not clear to me). It would seem reasonable (to me) that an
author should have a say so what happens to any requirement and (if
that is the authors desire) to have it publicly available for
research (and or discussion). If the research is by IBM that is
certainly reasonable if its research by other SHARE members that to
me is reasonable. IBM (and perhaps SHARE) seem not to take that
stance and restrict access to do any research. The day-to-day
workings of SHARE certainly should be able research such
requirements. But to say *ONLY* certain people to access requirements
is too restrictive, IMO. To me it is certainly within the scope of
SHARE to say only SHARE membership (and IBM of course) to do
research. IBM has some say so as to access (but not much). If vendor
wanted do research (and they were a member of SHARE) I would probably
say "maybe" depending on what they were looking for. For example if
the vendor was looking possible sales opportunities then the clear
answer is NO other than that (to me) it would be on a case by case
basis. If the submitting party(company & name) could be masked off
then a possible research into a product might be possible. I would
defer to the SHARE board (or IBM or both) for any decision making.
If requirements written with the idea that they are asking for IBM to
produce "something" whether it is a real product (be it hardware or
software) and it accepted (voted for submission by SHARE membership)
then it is reasonably open to the SHARE membership for research. It
cannot be only given out to person A or person B, IMO (unless there
are specifics of say money or corporate names that are contained in
the requirement (I don't recall of that ever being the case in any of
the requirements I have ever handled but cannot say it across the
board). There maybe cases where specific requirements be withheld
from everyone (again this should be decided on the exception rather
than the rule).
After reading over the above it occurred to me that it might be
faintly possible to look at IBM's response (LRC FO etc) and get some
glimmer of what IBM's plans might be. Other than "accepted" I just
can't see where anyone could get a jump on anything (because of the
nebulous meanings of LRC and FO etc). Chances are "accepted" means
within 6 months and no software/hardware company on the face of the
earth could respond with a product in that short of time span. So
companies really could not gain anything by knowing IBM's response.
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
