----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 12:17 PM
Subject: Re: Off the record
Walter,
That puts my mind at ease.
Some thoughts and info. before we talk this evening -
David Diaz had suggested that if the FFF "took it over" that they might claim it as their property and restrict access.
Several folks I respect have warned me, during the past few hours, that to have the FFF own and control it might not be the way to go. This reminded me that in the beginning I called it the "Unofficial Master Study Group". The idea was to try to help MCI candidates with information and knowledge from me and (more importantly) from those whose knowledge and expertise was better than my own...REMOTE FROM THE POLITICS OF ANY ORGANIZATION. (Read between the lines.)
I thought about your suggestion that it would be too bad to have something which has worked so well for us over the years wither and die as the result of less than competent management. I sure wouldn't want that !
It may be foolish of me to think that an FFF or other committee run organization could carry forth successfully and tactfully after I retire (or leave this Earth). It has been said that no man is irreplaceable and I'm sure that is true about me ..... but finding a person willing to put many hours each day into such an undertaking with no financial gain would surely be difficult even if there are many who could do a better job than I do.
Several people have prodded me to author a book with much of this material in it. There is no way I'd consider doing that for a variety of reasons including the fact that I don't need to vent my ego that way, and I have no interest in profiting financially by it since I consider so much of it to actually be the work of our members with me simply being a sort of moderator. (Doubt such a book would be a $$$ success, anyway, because of limited readership.)
I don't know if I told you that John Field (current president of the American Casting Association) wishes to write a book on fly casting and asked my permission and that of the FFF to use material from our Group messages. I told him he could use anything I had written. As a member, he has probably saved many of our messages. I informed him that this might well raise some legal issues and that if he did use any of this material, he'd best get written permission from each member who submitted entries.
He got a message back from David Diaz saying that he had no authority to give an FFF or personal opinion on this.
Best,
Gordy
On Feb 9, 2012, at 11:19 AM, WALTER SIMBIRSKI wrote:
Gordy,
I know you don't like to put too much of certain types of information in emails so I was trying to keep it sparse and it looks I gave you the wrong impression.
I'm sorry on two counts. First - I can't call at this time because I'm at work but I would be happy to call this evening. The second is that you have never said or done nothing that I take offense at and if it sounded like I was offended by something you said or did then I really do apologize. What does offend me is the idea that an outside party would claim they have any rights to the intellectual property produced by you and the members of your study group. I may have misunderstood something in our conversation but I think you said you received a letter from an outside party making claims of that nature. Now if that group takes over your study group they are entirely within their rights to present and protect it any way they want but what happens to any intellectual property created by you and the group up to this point is entirely up to you and the group. They could even say they would only take it over if given exclusive rights to all material generated up to this point but, if that's the case, then I think you can find better people to take over.
This may seem extreme but I suggest we let the members know that the information is being made available (currently on my web site) under a creative common license http://creativecommons.org/ and that if anyone has any objection to their contributions being made available this way then they should let you and I know about it so we can make reasonable efforts to remove any of their contributions. The creative common license has options for such things as - users cannot use the intellectual property for commercial use (e.g. they can't simply copy the material to publish a book); sharealike, i.e. if someone wants to share the information with others they must use the same license; and you can also state that there is no express warranty that the information is correct or that it will continue to be made available in the future.
If you agree with that idea then we could decide on the terms we think should go in the license and I can craft it up.
If we wanted to have a bit of fun we could say that the church of Kopime (pronounced copy me) in Sweden http://kopimistsamfundet.se/english/ has already copied the information so it is now under religious protection. :)
Cheers
Walter
----- Original Message -----
From: Gordy <hillshead@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, February 9, 2012 8:05 am
Subject: Re: Off the record
To: Walter Simbirski <simbirsw@xxxxxxx>
> Walter...
>
> My apologies if I said anything to offend you !!!
>
> That is the LAST think I'd wish to do.
>
> If I relayed offensive or wrong information, I need to
> know. Obviously, you are in a position to know much more
> about intellectual property than I do, so It's entirely possible
> that I was way off base.
>
> I'm at home, now. (10:00 am EST.) Please give me a
> call when you can: (305) 872-2106/
>
> Best,
>
> Gordy
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 9, 2012, at 12:11 AM, Walter Simbirski wrote:
>
> > Off the record - we should talk a bit more. I'm not a lawyer
> but my current job title is Intellectual Property Analyst and my
> > duties are to analyze intellectual property (such as data,
> software, inventions, etc.) to determine who owns the property,
> the value of the property, and how to protect and license the
> property. What you relayed to me, as I understand it, is not
> only entirely wrong but it also offends me.
>
>