2009/9/14 adam hyde <[email protected]>: > On Mon, 2009-09-14 at 11:00 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote: >> Adam, >> >> These may not be technical issues but they are process issues. They >> need to be resolved before the University of Oxford (and anyone doing >> proper due diligence of IP) can contribute. >> > > > well then i appreciate if you would say that your org requires things to > happen in a certain order because of internal policy issues rather than > suggest that FM is blocking the way. from my perspective you were free > to write in FM from the day i set it up.
Adam, At no point does my email say that it is FLOSSManuals that is blocking this work, I'm sorry if that is the impression you got. I am merely raising an issue that remains unresolved from before you joined this list and before we agreed to use the excellent FLOSSManuals platform. For the record, people should re-read my original mail replacing the occurrence of "FLOSSManuals" with "current work", no meaning is lost and any potential confusion should be removed. To make it easy for you here is the single sentence that mentions FLOSSManuals with this change applied: "a) licence on current work does not reflect licence agreed by community (and is a licence not recommended for text by its own authors http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyNotGPLForManuals)" Thank you for offering the use of FLOSSManuals for this work. I think it is a great framework within which to do our work, but a technical framework does not protect and manage the copyright in the work, it can only provide the necessary tools to do so. It is copyright law that enables FOSS to remain FOSS, we should not be confusing good tools with good IP management. Ross _______________________________________________ tos mailing list [email protected] http://teachingopensource.org/mailman/listinfo/tos
