Re: U2UG Contract
Martin Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: snip I guess that most of us are looking to move to the U2UG site. I started off down that path this morning but, being a careful sort of person, I read the terms and conditions. Clause 7a worries me. I have discussed this briefly with our legal advisors who said that we shouldn't agree to it without clarification. I've been focused on other things the last 24 hours, and haven't been watching the list too closely, so I have a lot of catching up to do. I've read all the mail in the thread, and will respond where appropriate. I apologize for responding to an email that is this old... So what is clause 7a?... snip Clause 7 is part of a boiler plate TOS that is included with PostNuke. Nothing more, and nothing less. There have been *zero* discussions as to what our TOS should be other than to make sure that we indemnify U2UG from copywrite issues. If you are concerned about the wording of any part of the TOS suggest an alternative wording. As has been stated elsewhere this is an effort by and of your fellow U2 users; we aren't out to take your work or inflict any harm on you. My non-legal mind looks at this and reads into it that once I have submitted a posting to the site, I give away all rights to everything I have done and all my future work that may have any connection with what I have posted. I'm not even certain that the connection is necessary! I am also NAL, but I don't read it the same way. IMHO the clause says that if you post a comment or submit a story that U2UG.org has the right to publish that text. Having said that, I it is important that we recognize that the meaning of the current text is not important. Propose an alternative and lets spend whatever time is important talking about that text instead. ~ kevin zollinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
Re: U2UG Contract
Lee Bacall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Cliff, I would like to thank you for being a selfless and non-partisan moderator as well as an apparent workaholic all these years, supporting the needs of the Universe/Unidata user base as well as the incredibly diverse whimsey found within the ranks of your loosely coupled band of angels. I too am grateful for all of the many hours that Cliff has invested in his effort. I think that it is time for some of the rest of us to step up to the plate and offer to help forward the cause of U2/MV. In its existing format there is no easy way for any of us to do that. I think that U2UG is a tool that we can use to allow others to help carry the load. I am truly saddened to see the transition of this forum from one of folk-art to a structured forum where the genius of those offering their wisdom and well thought out (or sometimes merely inspired) solutions, will thereafter become the intellectual properties of IBM. I don't know what folk-art means, and am unsure how adding structure to a discussion group is a bad thing, but as has been said elsewhere IBM does not own, operate or control U2UG. I do know that employees within IBM are very excited to contribute their time and efforts to U2UG, but this is in no way an indication that IBM owns the group. As is stated on every page of the website, your IP remains your IP. snip I am saddened to see that the 60's are over and that 1984 is indeed upon us. And here I thought that a group of like minded individuals getting together to better communicate with (impose its will upon??) a large multinational corporation was a very 60's thing to do. :) Maybe I'm just too young big grin. snip I for one am certainly in favor of a large, united front for all of us involved with a non-normalized first firm, nested, post-relational database and all of it's 19 +/- variants. I think that U2UG can provide that. We have the advantage of *already* having IBM supporting the effort. It would be tragic if we left IBM sitting alone at the conference table because the user community couldn't reach agreement. -- ~ kevin zollinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
[OT] RE: Top / Bottom posting, was: The aforementioned and promised NAG about OVERQUOTING
Jef Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: While I have seen the aversion to MS products on this list, I do like the way Outlook allows me to sort by subject then by received date/time. It is smart enough to handle the replies as part of a subject flow. That doesn't change the fact that Mocrslops refusal to follow established standards make it nearly impossible for their *experienced* to follow those same standards. Add millions of new users every month and Micro$lop has managed to totally destroy the standard. That leads to the mentioned aversion. Usually most of the threads are in blocks in the intray. I don't know if other products allow this. There are many email and newsreaders that have allowed threading for much longer than OE. Some do it much better. Of course, when OE comes free on every desktop more and more of the alternatives are going away. More reason for the adversion The sorting does go astray when someone changes the subject - so please restrain yourselves. But what do we do when the thread a) goes *totally* off-topic or b) changes to a new subject? Convention has always been that the subject should reflect the content, and that there should be a way for the reader to filter out the OT messages. As much as I would like to see you be able to use OE to the fullest, it is more important to me that I follow 20 year old established conventions. My 2¢ My 2¢ would be that even more important than posting your response directly after the text you are replying to would be to remove extra text. Because you failed to do that those that read the digest will be forced to wade through Ray's post all over again. While it was a high quality post, full of vim and vigor, one reading should be enough for the slowest of us. I don't really care whether you follow the convention or not, but please, *please*, **please**, trim your posts so the digesters can get the full value from the list! -- ~ kevin zollinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
[OT] RE: Out of office messages - from list?
Glenn W. Paschal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Wouldn't auto-responders reply to the list? These are coming to my own mailbox, with my e-mail in them. Please understand, I am not trying to point blame, just trying to check things out. My e-mail server was hijacked not too long ago, and it causes one to be extra careful. What do you mean when you say with my e-mail in them? Are you saying that you are getting email that is unrelated to this list? Or are you saying that when you post to the list it comes back as an Out of office message? Or are you saying that you get messages that other people have posted with an OOO auto-reply? If it is the last then Clif has already asked that we fix our autoreplies, if the second then it is the same as it has always been and if the first then there maybe be something more serious going on -- ~ kevin zollinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
RE: Document scan and retrieval (looking for software)
Mark Eastwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: www.1mage.com Never used it, but they've been around a long time. Used them. Liked them. It's been a few years but it was dead easy to integrate their stuff into MasterPack and other apps. I would reccomend them. As has been mentioned you'll pay more than you would if you were to roll your own, but it will get done a lot sooner ~ kevin zollinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ u2-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.oliver.com/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
