On 16/03/2011 00:54, Jack Howarth wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 08:37:38PM -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
>> On 3/15/2011 8:11 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
>>
>>> FSF legal could solve these problems in a minute. Don't shove a blanket
>>> dislaimer for all employees at the employer. Give them two options to
>>> sign...one blanket and one for only the specific employee. I have little
>>> sympathy for the copyright office on this as they preconfigured the
>>> paperwork to cause this exact problem.
>> Well I must say I have some sympathy for the FSF's position here. It is
>> SO much simpler if an organization will sign a blanket disclaimer, since
>> then each employee does not have to go through a lot of nonsense.
>>
>> Can you give a clue as to why UC objects to signing the blanket
>> disclaimer. I dont have too much sympthy for universities that
>> try to desperately protect their "intellectual property rights"!
>> Universities should be about open discourse and sharing of ideas.
>
> I believe UC's objection was to the third paragraph to which they commented...
>
> As an academic institution, with an enormity of faculty, students, and staff
> for which we might obtain rights in, I'm a bit concerned that I might give up
> rights that I have no way of predicting I might have.
>
> A fair enough objection, no?
Yes, but at the same time, their desire to take their time to carefully
study and be sure they have fully understood the legal ramifications of any
arrangement they might enter into is *exactly* identical and symmetrical to
the FSF's lawyers' desire to do the exact same thing, is it not?
cheers,
DaveK
