07 Mar, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 61st comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
I was arguing against your claims that "It is unusual to be paid by somebody to do work and yet maintain complete and exclusive rights rights to your work", that it's "certainly unusual for e.g. consultants", that "The idea is rather preposterous in most situations", and that "it is still unusual for somebody to hire somebody else and have the person hired retain full rights".

Gee, that's funny… If you are arguing against that position, then for the life of me, I cannot determine why you used the examples you have, because in none of them do the authors retain complete and exclusive rights to the work, because they have licensed it to other people! Obviously they have not lost all rights, but by the very act of licensing it to somebody, they lose exclusivity.

KaVir said:
You attempted to discredit my argument by claiming that only one mud sold licences

Now we're past straw men, and in the territory of factually incorrect statements. Where exactly did I say that only one MUD sold licenses? If you are referring to when I spoke of anecdotal evidence, it does not follow from saying that something is anecdotal evidence that it is the only piece of evidence – merely that it is just what the words say, one anecdoctal instance.

KaVir said:
Such a gross overgeneralisation renders any discussion worthless.

For somebody who thinks that, you have devoted much time to it. I don't understand why, knowing how I intend something, you deliberately fail to interpret it how it is meant, and instead criticize something that was not meant, and then still think the discussion is productive. Even if you think my point is trivially true, I'm not sure why you feel the need to argue with distortions of the point that I never made. But have fun with your windmills if that is what floats your boat. Unless you reply to what I actually said, and not things you prefer me to have said, I'm going to stop this. Because indeed, this discussion is worthless… :thinking:
07 Mar, 2008, KaVir wrote in the 62nd comment:
Votes: 0
DavidHaley said:
Gee, that's funny… If you are arguing against that position, then for the life of me, I cannot determine why you used the examples you have, because in none of them do the authors retain complete and exclusive rights to the work, because they have licensed it to other people! Obviously they have not lost all rights, but by the very act of licensing it to somebody, they lose exclusivity.


But they don't transfer it. Back on page 3 you started this line of discussion by asking:

"So… you don't find it unusual to pay a consultant for work, and not have the IP transferred to you?"

And as I said, in certain situations I wouldn't find that unusual. But if you'd instead asked:

"So… you don't find it unusual to pay a consultant for work, and not be able to use the work you paid for?"

Then I would have answered "yes". However that's a very different question indeed.

Obviously it's not possible to be the exclusive user of a copyrighted work while at the same time licensing that same right to someone else. But the copyright holder has the right to choose either option, and unless they explicitly sell exclusive rights they can continue to use the work in whatever way they wish.

But if the copyright holder transfers the copyright or exclusive rights, as you suggested in the quoted text above, then they can longer use it themselves, nor sell those rights to others. It is these two transfers of right - exclusive as opposed to non-exclusive - that we've been discussing.


[snip remaining insults, backtracking and whining]

Apology accepted.
07 Mar, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 63rd comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
that we've been discussing.

I have no idea what "we" have been discussing anymore. I feel like every time I say something, I get a non sequitur back. You are having this discussion interpreting my words on your terms, not on the terms I intended them in. Whether or not you're doing it deliberately is unclear; sometimes it looks like you are, at other times it does not.

KaVir said:
[snip remaining insults, backtracking and whining]

Apology accepted.

You know, when you pointed out that I made a factual error citing your words, at least I recognized it. Is the above truly all the grace you can show? :sad:

Where did I insult you? Do you take personal insult at my telling you that you made a factual error, or that you presented a straw man argument because you replied to something when I just said it wasn't what I said? In any case, no insult was intended to your person, although I admit to being just a wee bit frustrated with the thread.
07 Mar, 2008, KaVir wrote in the 64th comment:
Votes: 0
DavidHaley said:
KaVir said:
that we've been discussing.


I have no idea what "we" have been discussing anymore. I feel like every time I say something, I get a non sequitur back. You are having this discussion interpreting my words on your terms, not on the terms I intended them in. Whether or not you're doing it deliberately is unclear; sometimes it looks like you are, at other times it does not.


The point I'm trying to discuss is this:

Mabus wishes to sell a licence, and not transfer exclusive rights.

I do not feel it is "unusual" for him to do that, based on what I know of his situation.

The End.


DavidHaley said:
You know, when you pointed out that I made a factual error citing your words, at least I recognized it. Is the above truly all the grace you can show? :sad:


Okay, fair enough; you attempted to discredit my argument by implying (not claiming!) that it hinged on only one mud that sold licences.

DavidHaley said:
Where did I insult you?


Calling me names, false accusations, sarcastic responses to inconvenient evidence, etc.
07 Mar, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 65th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
Okay, fair enough; you attempted to discredit my argument by implying (not claiming!) that it hinged on only one mud that sold licences.

No, I am afraid I didn't – that's not what it means to be anecdotal evidence. It means that the given example is not sufficient to prove the general case due to being just a specific example. It doesn't mean there aren't other instances. Using anecdotal evidence to prove the general case is like using an existentially quantified statement to prove the universal. It doesn't mean the universal is false, nor does it mean there aren't other ways of satisfying the existential. It just means that the one is not sufficient to show the other.

KaVir said:
false accusations,

Were there any other "false accusations", besides the bit about anecdotal evidence supposedly implying a bunch of stuff it doesn't?

KaVir said:
sarcastic responses to inconvenient evidence

Inconvenient evidence? Sure, if you mean against claims I didn't make… :wink: And hey, I'm not sure how sarcasm is insulting, and if it is, why I shouldn't feel equally insulted by you!
07 Mar, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 66th comment:
Votes: 0
For some reason, this and this come to mind. :lol:
07 Mar, 2008, KaVir wrote in the 67th comment:
Votes: 0
DavidHaley said:
KaVir said:
Okay, fair enough; you attempted to discredit my argument by implying (not claiming!) that it hinged on only one mud that sold licences.


No, I am afraid I didn't – that's not what it means to be anecdotal evidence. It means that the given example is not sufficient to prove the general case due to being just a specific example.


Well actually, anecdotal evidence is information or observations based on anecdote or hearsay, as opposed to scientific study or analysis. But that wasn't what I was referring to. What you said was:

"Great! You have one piece of anecdotal evidence: a clear winner for showing the usual case!"

The implication being that I was attempting to show the "usual case" by providing one piece of evidence.


But regardless, to reiterate, my point was this:

Mabus wishes to sell a licence, and not transfer exclusive rights.

I do not feel it is "unusual" for him to do that, based on what I know of his situation.

The End.
07 Mar, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 68th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
Well actually, anecdotal evidence is information or observations based on anecdote or hearsay

I, uh, fail to see how the example you gave isn't an observation based on one anecdote.

Do you think that by copy-pasting text and putting it into bold font, it will acquire more worth or value? :wink: I did hear you the first time… It's a fine point, and not one that I disagree with. I guess it's a good thing I've been so careful to say over and over again that I was talking about the general case, not Mabus's case. Hey, I know: maybe I should try pasting it, in bold? :smile:
07 Mar, 2008, KaVir wrote in the 69th comment:
Votes: 0
DavidHaley said:
I, uh, fail to see how the example you gave isn't an observation based on one anecdote.


Which is why I said "that wasn't what I was referring to" (i.e., in reference to your use of the phrase "anecdotal evidence").

DavidHaley said:
Do you think that by copy-pasting text and putting it into bold font, it will acquire more worth or value?


I think it will increase the chances of getting a response.

DavidHaley said:
I did hear you the first time… It's a fine point, and not one that I disagree with.


Splendid. Then I'm off down the pub.
07 Mar, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 70th comment:
Votes: 0
Gee, how kind that you also recognized that you were arguing with me with respect to a point I wasn't making. It's nice to have this come to such a delightful and friendly resolution. :smile:
07 Mar, 2008, drrck wrote in the 71st comment:
Votes: 0
DavidHaley said:
I disagree… It's fairly standard in some businesses to not have up-front payment but have it be contingent on success. In fact, many startups work exactly this way, because in the beginning, there is not necessarily enough money to pay people with in the first place!


I think "many" is a huge stretch, even in the relative context that you're using it. I know of some startups whose employees' incomes were dependent upon how much the business made (more profit = more income), but it's extremely rare that they ask an employee to risk making nothing, and those that do usually never succeed in their venture simply for the lack of commitment.

There's always enough money to pay people. Whether you have it up front, or need to borrow it is another matter.
08 Mar, 2008, Mabus wrote in the 72nd comment:
Votes: 0
I had no idea this was still a live thread…

But since it is here is an update:
We have been transfering the license back and forth, marking our changes in blue, our required deletions in red and I now know for certain that legalize gives me a headache…

Some of the points of contention (and not the only ones) are how to handle third party contributors:
"Contributor's modifications, designs and code brought by Licensor to the Project, and/or applied by the Licensor to the Software, are considered modifications made by the Licensor and fall under this License."

"Internal Code, Software and/or server modifications, and external Code and Software modifications, by a Contributer to the Software and Code considered necessary for the operation and day to day updates and maintenance of the Software, or to bring the Software into compliance with design implications for the Project are allowed, as long as these are commented and noted in the Code and either agreed upon by Licensor, or Licensor is in violation of Section 2.12 of the License. Modifications, deletions, changes and additions to the Software and Code by Contributers do not nullify the License."

Like I said, my head hurts.
08 Mar, 2008, Guest wrote in the 73rd comment:
Votes: 0
Aye. That kind of thing is why you should let the lawyers handle it. It sounds like they're doing exactly what they should, hammering out the terms in legally useful ways.
08 Mar, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 74th comment:
Votes: 0
Mabus said:
"Contributor's modifications, designs and code brought by Licensor to the Project, and/or applied by the Licensor to the Software, are considered modifications made by the Licensor and fall under this License."

So if you throw in a third-party library, it's considered to lie under the license for them? That seems a little odd to me.

Incidentally, if you care, the word contributor is spelled one way in the first paragraph but is then changed to "contributer" in the second.
08 Mar, 2008, Mabus wrote in the 75th comment:
Votes: 0
DavidHaley said:
So if you throw in a third-party library, it's considered to lie under the license for them? That seems a little odd to me.

Each of the terms (modifications, designs, code, Project, Software, Licensor, License and many other ones) is defined in the definition section.
DavidHaley said:
Incidentally, if you care, the word contributor is spelled one way in the first paragraph but is then changed to "contributer" in the second.

Yes, I do care about the spelling, as I said "Contributor" is defined in the definitions section. Thanks for pointing it out. I am sure my/their spellchecking would get to it eventually.

This is a back and forth stage, not a final. Once the final is decided everything can be looked over and reviewed. Or, once we decide we are unable to reach a final, we can go on our merry ways with our many hours having been used for nothing. The more this goes on the less I feel I even want to be a part of the project.

It's much more fun doing this as a hobby.
08 Mar, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 76th comment:
Votes: 0
Mabus said:
Each of the terms (modifications, designs, code, Project, Software, Licensor, License and many other ones) is defined in the definition section.

Yeah, it's kind of hard to comment much without knowing all the definitions you guys are using.

Mabus said:
It's much more fun doing this as a hobby.

I can definitely understand that one… :wink: The whole license thing is really just covering tracks in the event of a problem; it's a necessary step in some cases but not necessarily indicative of bad times to come. (Of course, if people can't work out the license, that probably is an indication of potential future problems…)
25 Mar, 2008, Mabus wrote in the 77th comment:
Votes: 0
Just as an update, we could not come to an agreement.
Random Picks
60.0/77