[alicebot-archcomm] copyright on mailing list messages

[Anne Kootstra]

These are indeed good basic rules and I think most people on this particular
mailing list are aware of them. However, this doesn't cover the current
archived AIML examples that were posted on the mailing list(s). 

Some of these examples have been used in AIML knowledgebases that were
developed for commercial purposes. The implications of applying the GPL to
the archive(s) is therefore very large for these firms. In extreme cases
this means that the commercial value of an KB could be severely affected. 

Now, this may be solved by good setting up elaborate contracts. However, and
this is something I'm more worried about, it may actually prevent people
from sharing *any* code with others. This may be an overkill reaction, but
an understandable from a programmer point of view. One who is not sure of
the legal status of his or her post will most likely be more careful with
sharing (parts of) an innovative idea.

The academic licence you mentioned is certainly an option. One that may be
of use to a lot of people, but again what may be the real world effect of
this? Applying it to complete AIML files would certainly create a more fair
environment for the original author. However, I have some doubts regarding
the usefulness of this licence for the current mail archive. 

Many code examples have found their way to files that may, or may not, be
used in commercial AIML files (assuming they exist). In the case the/an
academic licence is applied to the archive (and future posts) it will mean
people will have to go over their code to see whether or not there's any
code there that came from the mailing list. Again a situation that is not
desirable and should be avoided, whenever possible.

Maybe it would be a good idea to have a preliminary vote on this. From my
view there are roughly two systems we can apply here.

1. 
Action: 
We consider the archive and future posts to be public domain. 

Effect:
- No licences need to be adapted.
- Education of the community of the consequences of this decision.

2. 
Action:
We apply a commercial restrictive licence. (GPL, Academic, etc)

Effect:
- commercial licences need to be altered.
- existing contracts may need altering.
- number of code examples may be reduced. 
- education of the community

In the case that option 2 is preferred we could discuss the several
licences. Otherwise this would not be needed.

--Anne


> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: alicebot-archcomm-admin@list.alicebot.org 
> [mailto:alicebot-archcomm-admin@list.alicebot.org] Namens ccallen
> Verzonden: vrijdag 21 februari 2003 19:51
> Aan: alicebot-archcomm@list.alicebot.org
> Onderwerp: Re: [alicebot-archcomm] copyright on mailing list messages
> 
> 
> A general rule of thumb is if you have ideas for building 
> your own commercial system, dont blast them out onto an 
> internet mailing list. Dont use GPL'ed code, or other 
> people's protected code. Translate your ideas into a design 
> and write your code from scrtatch. And once you start to 
> generate interesting code, dont post it to a news group.
> 
> A second rule is that the world is a competitive place full 
> of highly skilled people looking for fresh ideas. If you have 
> a cool idea, chances are someone else has had that same idea 
> and may actually be working on it. If you do have an orginal 
> idea, once you've blasted it to a news group you can pretty 
> much kiss it good bye.
> 
> Has anyone ever considered a different kind of licensing? The 
> GPL seems to be geared more toward the commercial world. An 
> Achedemic type license might be a better fit for AimlBot. One 
> where it says you are free to use the code for non-commercial 
> use only and if you intend to use the code in a commercial 
> system you must negotiate a license (usually with some royalties
> involved) with the holders to the rights to the code. This 
> leads to the question, who holds the rights to the code? Is 
> it AIF, Richard Wallace, the individuals who wrote the code?
> 
> Conan