> You're suggesting that counsel spend their time writing to
> agencies ... when we know almost nothing about them.
Again, if there is another way to find out, I'd like to learn it.
>> Therefore I think it would be worth writing a letter asking that the
>> BOLT, SMISC, and CSFV be returned to
That didn't really identify any of the questions. You're suggesting
that counsel spend their time writing to agencies to ask about the
copyright status of programs with the intent of considering taking
them over, when we know almost nothing about them.
Since you've identified the people
> Where do you see legal standing being a factor...?
On further reflection, it would certainly be better to simply ask the
DARPA Crowdsourced Formal Verification (CSVF) Program Manager Daniel
Ragsdale, who has left DARPA and is now a Professor at Texas A
University, about the extent to which
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 9:53 AM, James Salsman wrote:
>
>
> Doesn't that mean that the Foundation has the legal standing to see all
> three of those projects published?
Where do you see legal standing being a factor here, and how would the WMF
have it?
On 16-04-12 06:25 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> Yeah, what have DARPA ever done for us..?
For the benefit of those who do not sport beards[1], one of the most
relevant things that is a legacy of DARPA - and certainly the one Andy
is alluding to - is that of Internet itself (née Arpanet).
-- Coren /
> DARPA
Yeah, what have DARPA ever done for us..?
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 1:54 PM, James Salsman wrote:
> Re
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/publicpolicy/2016-April/001335.html
>
>
>
> Are there any reasons that trying to do this might be a bad idea?
>
> __
Because the WMF is not, at least as far as we know,
Off the top of my head:
1. Because we have absolutely no idea, from the briefs given, about
the technological stack and how well it meshes with our existing
expertise as a movement, or the WMF's existing expertise as a
technical entity;
2. Because we have absolutely no idea, from the briefs