On Sat, 24 Jun 2000, Rod Welch wrote:
> Licensing is a legal issue. At some point a lawyer will draft a document and
> people will be asked to sign it. Typically, we need legal advice on issues of
> notice, disclosure, rights and remedies, risks and so on. So far that is
> lacking in the record. Second, the project needs funding to proceed
> meaningfully. The source of the funds will have a say in the license issue.
Drafting a new license is certainly an alternative, but one I would be
strongly against. There are already several standard open source
licenses, all of which have been reviewed by multiple
lawyers.
No funding source will have any direct say in license issues, other than
perhaps to choose not to fund us. As I and others (including Doug) have
said repeatedly, we are fully and unshakeably committed to an open source
license. That said, one issue we must certainly think about is how our
open source license may be perceived by potential funders. For example,
corporations may feel more comfortable funding a group developing a
project under the BSD or MPL.
> On 000419 Doug wrote to the seed team and suggested we work on formulating a
> definition of knowledge management. I am not sure, but he may have mentioned
> this previously, something to do with Bellinger. Joe Williams mentioned later
> that Doug brought this up again at a meeting on 000504. When the boss brings up
> the same thing over and over again, that sounds important. Yet, we get bogged
> down in endless discussions about license, Zope, Soap, Wiki, Squeak, Slop Jock,
> and so on, without any effort to explain how they contribute to moving from
> information to knowledge management. On 000424 Adam Cheyer wrote to the DKR
> team and urged that we "listen" to Doug. He did not explain how such listening
> is established. One way might be to do the workup on KM that provides a basis
> for a DKR. It is not enough to wave Doug's papers in air, and say, "It's all in
> there."
I can assure you that if Doug wanted us to define knowledge management at
the meetings rather than discuss OHS development issues, that would have
been at the top of the agenda. As I noted on June 15, I discuss the
agenda with Doug before each meeting.
That said, I think formulating a definition of knowledge management is an
interesting and important problem, and I'd encourage you to start a
thread on that here. I think we've already limited too much discussion
to the physical meetings. When it's possible, we should try to work
things out on this list.
-Eugene
-- +=== Eugene Eric Kim ===== eekim@eekim.com ===== http://www.eekim.com/ ===+ | "Writer's block is a fancy term made up by whiners so they | +===== can have an excuse to drink alcohol." --Steve Martin ===========+------------------------------------------------------------------------ Want insight into hot IPOs, investing strategies and stocks to watch? Red Herring FREE newsletters provide strategic analysis for investors. http://click.egroups.com/1/5176/5/_/444287/_/961866662/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Community email addresses: Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com Subscribe: unrev-II-subscribe@onelist.com Unsubscribe: unrev-II-unsubscribe@onelist.com List owner: unrev-II-owner@onelist.com
Shortcut URL to this page: http://www.onelist.com/community/unrev-II
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 24 2000 - 10:19:25 PDT