[TOS] Conference Call - Monday Sept 14 - 15:00 UTC
ross.gardler at oucs.ox.ac.uk
Mon Sep 14 10:31:47 UTC 2009
2009/9/14 adam hyde <adam at flossmanuals.net>:
> On Mon, 2009-09-14 at 11:00 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
>> 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.
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
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.
More information about the tos