[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] Indexes: Main | Date | Thread | Author

Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Continuation of Doug's Colloquium

Ref. Paul's cautionary message of 22-Jan-03
    http://www.bootstrap.org/lists/ba-unrev-talk/0301/msg00048.html    (01)

1. It might be worth revisiting (i) the scope of the colloquium, and (ii)
the intent of the "permission to use" statement.    (02)

(i) The colloquium was offered as a Stanford University professional
education course. The course description says,
     See http://scpd.stanford.edu/SOL/courses/proEd/EC/
Course Name:
     Engelbart Colloquium at Stanford
     An In-Depth Look at "The Unfinished Revolution"    (03)

Faculty:  Douglas C. Engelbart, Ph.D.    (04)

This colloquium will offer professionals and executives a rare opportunity
to listen to and learn from visionary Doug Engelbart as he talks about his
life's work, creative process, and his concerns and vision for the future.
//    (05)

To help refresh everyone's memory, I have brought up, from the archives, the
original colloquium page from the Bootstrap website (dated around early
March 2000) where the public information on the colloquium is posted. That
and the course pages on the Stanford would have been the main source of
public information about the colloquium.  I have it, now, at
A lots of the links don't work any more, but it clearly explains what the
colloquium was about. I'm going to leave that page there for the next couple
of weeks in case people want to look at it.    (06)

Based on the above descriptions, developing the OHS or any other system,
obviously does not fall within the scope of this Stanford course. I,
therefore, suggest that we stop talking about system development as if it
were a colloquium activity, and even less so, an extended activity (because
it is out of scope.)    (07)

(ii) The intent of putting a "permission to use" statement in place was to
facilitate the boradcast, webcast, taping and the subsequent publication of
the colloquium content into courseware, a book or something in that vein.
The indemnification clause (which, actually is fairly standard) is there to
make sure that participants are responsible for their own acts.    (08)

If someone had spoken during the colloquium (since dialog was a feature)
and, either intentionally or unintentionally, divulged his/her employer's
trade secrets, and the employer sues -- neither Bootstrap Institute nor
Stanford University would want to be (nor should they be) involved. This is
the type of situation the indemnity clause was there for. It does take a
long stretch to get from this to interpreting it as being akin to "asking
volunteers to absorb liability."    (09)

2. All this discussion is interesting, but the real issue is -- is there a
real and appreciable risk and threat, to the extent that we should stop
certain pursuits because of it. I guess each of us will have to answer that
for himself or herself. I don't believe a legal professional, that we pay
some money to, could do it for us.    (010)

-ppy    (011)