On Jun 7, 10:46 am, rtimwest <rtimw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As I said to them, I do not think there is any chance of widespread
> adoption of a timekeeping system if explicit permission is required
> for distribution OR commercial use. The response I received did not
> point out any mis-interpretation.
Well Tim,
I am not prepared to leave it there; in limbo. Forward me a copy of
your correspondence (off list) with them and I will take up the
cause. It is their responsibility to clarify the situation once and
for all in the affirmative for us.
My approach will be that I am, and will be, using and distributing the
NET time concept on a not-for-profit basis. I will give them due
credit for trademarks and copyright.(even though they have failed to
renew their copyright since 2006)
If I don't hear otherwise then I am alternatively taking up their
offer as stated on their website to use NET for free and non-
commercial purposes, which includes, but not limited to, anything that
falls under the most broad not-for-profit definition.
Further, I cannot, and will not, under any circumstances accept
responsible for what other people, who have been duly informed of the
legal rights involved might choose to to do with such information. If
they should see any abuse of their rights then they have recourse
under whatever laws may apply to whatever jurisdiction.
While I believe that they may have legally obtained a copyright for
their web site and a trademark for their names, neither of these
extends to the fact that a 24 hour clock normally traverses 360
degrees and that can be neither be copyrighted nor trademarked.
Nor can anyone be prevented from drawing a connection between the 360
degrees of the circle a 24 hour inscribes and discussing it and
broadcasting such ideas with complete freedom from restriction.
My final arbitrator will be their own offer to the public to use New
Earth Time for free. Or I will see them in court whichever comes
first, since I have been there for similar reasons more often than
they have.
Send me your correspondence, please
Morris
On Jun 7, 10:46 am, rtimwest <rtimw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dirk,
>
> Please don't apologize, you write far better in English than I do in
> any other language.
>
> I agree with you that the situation is unclear, and the response I got
> did not help.
>
> I also regret that I cannot include NET in the final package. If they
> clarify the IP situation, or adopt a real license, I will of course
> reconsider then.
>
> As I said to them, I do not think there is any chance of widespread
> adoption of a timekeeping system if explicit permission is required
> for distribution OR commercial use. The response I received did not
> point out any mis-interpretation.
>
> Best,
>
> Tim West
>
> On Jun 6, 11:10 am, Dirk Zemisch <dzemi...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hallo rtimwest,
>
> > rtimwest <rtimw...@gmail.com> schrieb am 04.06.2009 16:17 Uhr:
>
> > > I contacted the folks at New Earth Time through their web page about
> > > the apparent conflict between the GPL(s), Creative Commons License,
> > > and their copyright notice that states that explicit permission must
> > > be obtained in order to "distribute" or use NET commercially. AFAIK,
> > > the Creative Commons License allows commercial use, and the GPL does,
> > > but with stipulations intended to ENSURE free distribution, not
> > > restrict it.
>
> > English is not my native language (far from it), but I understand the
> > statement on the NET website as focussed on 'commercialization', not
> > distributing. But I'm fully agree with your arguments that this point
> > needs a clear explanation from degree NET Ltd.
>
> > The used terminology ('The [...] concept is intellectual property of')
> > doesn't sound like an invitation to use the concept.
>
> > > I received a short but polite response from Mark Laugesen, who has
> > > "New Earth Time, Canberra" in his e-mail sig. He expressed some
> > > interest in TiddlyWiki, and also expressed regret at the situation,
> > > but made no concrete offers or promises to change anything.
>
> > In my humble opinion ist doesn't help - nor you for distributing the
> > plugin, neither the propagation of NET.
>
> > > I'm not all all certain that they could make this stick- it seems to
> > > me unlikely that dividing the day into 360 units is the sort of thing
> > > that can be protected by copyright, although they can probably at
> > > least do that with the name. The CONCEPT would only be patentable (in
> > > theory) if there were no prior examples... but IANAL, and have no
> > > vested interest in contesting their claims or promoting their idea
> > > against their wishes.
>
> > I'm fully agree and I'm sure, that there are a lot of regions on earth
> > where such concepts never will get a protection by law.
>
> > > Accordingly, the prototype program NETTimePlugin has been removed from
> > > my accessible sites, even in it's pre-release form, even though it was
> > > not linked to, to prevent any possibility of "distribution".
>
> > It's a pity! Again for both - te concept and your implemtation. But I
> > understand your irritations and support this decision.
>
> > Regards!
> > Dirk
> > --
>
> > signature.asc
> > < 1KViewDownload
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"TiddlyWiki" group.
To post to this group, send email to TiddlyWiki@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/TiddlyWiki?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
