Re: [gnome-summary] Gnome Summary copyright (fwd)

[Sri Ramkrishna <sri aracnet com>]

There is a proposed strike team on copyright.  So perhaps these issues can 
be bubbled up there.

However, I think that I've decided that a Creative Common's copyright is 
appropriate and allows us to change text if we need to.  Also, someone in 
our summary team suggested an agreement that if edits misrepresents, that 
we would issue a retraction or correction in the followin gnome-summary.

That should cover us, but knowing who we are is still a question.  Perhaps 
someone can look into that portion of it.  But I think I've decided on a 
legal course for gnome-summary content.  I just need to write a draft now. 
:-)  Yay.

sri


On 2 Feb 2004, Tim Ney, GNOME Foundation wrote:

> Date: 02 Feb 2004 12:09:04 -0500
> From: "Tim Ney, GNOME Foundation" <director gnome org>
> To: Sri Ramkrishna <sri aracnet com>
> Cc: gnome-marketing gnome org, gnome-summary gnome org,
>      alan lxorguk ukuu org uk
> Subject: Re: [gnome-summary] Gnome Summary copyright (fwd)
> 
> Hello Sri,
> 
> These are important questions. Let me review them with a lawyer.  
> 
> tim
> 
> On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 18:47:15, Sri Ramkrishna wrote:
> 
> 
> > * When we do interviews, what is the agreement between interviewer and 
> >   interviewee if we have to modify text of his interview say for grammar
> >   and spelling.  What legal agreements must we have with who we interview?
> > 
> > * Who owns gnome-summaries in terms of copyright?  There is no legal 
> >   entity called "gnome-summaary".  One thing I thought would be to have
> >   it as Creative Commons.  Since we are using web space on d.g.o, does
> >   that make us part of Gnome foundation and if not.
> > 
> > There is possibility of being sued for libel or what not under American
> > law.  What legal protections must we have when we do these things?  
> > Expanding gnome-summary could have possible legal repercussions if we
> > continue doing interviews and what.
> 
> 
>