Comments on: Oreillyism – A conversation for Open Source ™ people everywhere http://davecormier.com/edblog/2006/05/27/oreillyism-a-conversation-for-open-source-tm-people-everywhere/ Education, post-structuralism and the rise of the machines Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:19:22 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Peter http://davecormier.com/edblog/2006/05/27/oreillyism-a-conversation-for-open-source-tm-people-everywhere/comment-page-1/#comment-2570 Peter Tue, 18 Jul 2006 20:20:04 +0000 http://davecormier.com/edblog/?p=57#comment-2570 "I in no way meant to imply that moodle WILL charge anyone anything ever." Well, that would not be much of a stretch. Take a look at this very interesting discussion in the Moodle.org forums. http://moodle.org/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=48528 “I in no way meant to imply that moodle WILL charge anyone anything ever.”

Well, that would not be much of a stretch. Take a look at this very interesting discussion in the Moodle.org forums.

http://moodle.org/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=48528

]]> By: Inhibit http://davecormier.com/edblog/2006/05/27/oreillyism-a-conversation-for-open-source-tm-people-everywhere/comment-page-1/#comment-1678 Inhibit Fri, 02 Jun 2006 17:34:19 +0000 http://davecormier.com/edblog/?p=57#comment-1678 Which is why, in the case of the school and the WebCT deal, you should get thing stratified with a license agreeable to *all* parties before accepting an offer to aid another party in programming something. Otherwise, if you're simply working on their product for free.. well.. unless you've reserved some right or have some under the law to protest their insisting on fees for their work, you really don't have cause to complain. Was the person complaining just not used to how the whole "pay for software" world works? Moodle's GPL.. that's like comparing Apples and Orangutans if WebCT is a non-GPL (or BSD style) licensed software. However, if he's expecting free support.. well.. people need to eat *shrug*. Which is why, in the case of the school and the WebCT deal, you should get thing stratified with a license agreeable to *all* parties before accepting an offer to aid another party in programming something.

Otherwise, if you’re simply working on their product for free.. well.. unless you’ve reserved some right or have some under the law to protest their insisting on fees for their work, you really don’t have cause to complain. Was the person complaining just not used to how the whole “pay for software” world works?

Moodle’s GPL.. that’s like comparing Apples and Orangutans if WebCT is a non-GPL (or BSD style) licensed software. However, if he’s expecting free support.. well.. people need to eat *shrug*.

]]> By: Harold Jarche http://davecormier.com/edblog/2006/05/27/oreillyism-a-conversation-for-open-source-tm-people-everywhere/comment-page-1/#comment-1641 Harold Jarche Wed, 31 May 2006 14:38:27 +0000 http://davecormier.com/edblog/?p=57#comment-1641 My 2 cents worth (again). Regarding Moodle - they already have a commercial venture (moodle.com) and a community (moodle.org), which WebCT never had. I think that it is unlikely that Moodle will start charging for its software, but given the nature of the license, the community could take the source code and fork it anyway. That's the joy of the GPL. Yes, we should be vigilant but there are some safeguards built in to the community. Also, I think that this post needs the link to the reference to Web 2.0 made in 1999 by Darcy DiNucci. O'Reilly and CMP were not the first by a long shot: http://www.allbusiness.com/periodicals/article/383501-1.html My 2 cents worth (again).

Regarding Moodle – they already have a commercial venture (moodle.com) and a community (moodle.org), which WebCT never had. I think that it is unlikely that Moodle will start charging for its software, but given the nature of the license, the community could take the source code and fork it anyway. That’s the joy of the GPL. Yes, we should be vigilant but there are some safeguards built in to the community.

Also, I think that this post needs the link to the reference to Web 2.0 made in 1999 by Darcy DiNucci. O’Reilly and CMP were not the first by a long shot:

http://www.allbusiness.com/periodicals/article/383501-1.html

]]> By: admin http://davecormier.com/edblog/2006/05/27/oreillyism-a-conversation-for-open-source-tm-people-everywhere/comment-page-1/#comment-1611 admin Mon, 29 May 2006 10:42:36 +0000 http://davecormier.com/edblog/?p=57#comment-1611 http://www.flickr.com/photos/traftery/153074441/ oh, and tom, read this letter. It says 'web 2.0 conference AND web 2.0 service mark.' http://www.flickr.com/photos/traftery/153074441/

oh, and tom, read this letter. It says ‘web 2.0 conference AND web 2.0 service mark.’

]]> By: admin http://davecormier.com/edblog/2006/05/27/oreillyism-a-conversation-for-open-source-tm-people-everywhere/comment-page-1/#comment-1610 admin Mon, 29 May 2006 10:31:15 +0000 http://davecormier.com/edblog/?p=57#comment-1610 Your candor is always appreciated. The 'simplicity' that I'm referring to in the argument made by yourself (which simplified 800 years of british common law history to one sentence) saying that 'all issues of naming are the same'. So, me building a car named Chrysler, a piece of software named vista, or hosting a brangelina conference are somehow the same. They are not. What I find simplistic is the style of argumentation that breaks important issues down to a rhetorical question. In this case i see you have ignored my actual post and have found a reference to your name in the comments of my blog. In my post I address my feelings about the trademark issue. I have no problem with them having one. Truth be told, they don't own it in Europe. And Tim was invited to this conference and sent an 'i'd love to but...' in February. doesn't really sound like fair play to send a scare letter two weeks before a conference that you've known about for 4 months Your candor is always appreciated. The ‘simplicity’ that I’m referring to in the argument made by yourself (which simplified 800 years of british common law history to one sentence) saying that ‘all issues of naming are the same’. So, me building a car named Chrysler, a piece of software named vista, or hosting a brangelina conference are somehow the same. They are not.

What I find simplistic is the style of argumentation that breaks important issues down to a rhetorical question.

In this case i see you have ignored my actual post and have found a reference to your name in the comments of my blog. In my post I address my feelings about the trademark issue. I have no problem with them having one. Truth be told, they don’t own it in Europe. And Tim was invited to this conference and sent an ‘i’d love to but…’ in February. doesn’t really sound like fair play to send a scare letter two weeks before a conference that you’ve known about for 4 months

]]> By: Tom Hoffman http://davecormier.com/edblog/2006/05/27/oreillyism-a-conversation-for-open-source-tm-people-everywhere/comment-page-1/#comment-1606 Tom Hoffman Mon, 29 May 2006 04:19:49 +0000 http://davecormier.com/edblog/?p=57#comment-1606 And if you look at the original Web 2.0 conference site -- http://www.web2con.com/web2con/ -- it is pretty clear that the service mark is "Web 2.0 Conference," not "Web 2.0." That's what they're defending. And if you look at the original Web 2.0 conference site — http://www.web2con.com/web2con/ — it is pretty clear that the service mark is “Web 2.0 Conference,” not “Web 2.0.” That’s what they’re defending.

]]> By: Tom Hoffman http://davecormier.com/edblog/2006/05/27/oreillyism-a-conversation-for-open-source-tm-people-everywhere/comment-page-1/#comment-1605 Tom Hoffman Mon, 29 May 2006 04:08:08 +0000 http://davecormier.com/edblog/?p=57#comment-1605 Dave, Are you basing your argument on some knowledge of trademark law, or are you just pulling this out of your rear end? I don't see how the argument that O'Reilly *created* the term "Web 2.0" as the title of a conference, and therefore they have a right to prevent other people from creating competing conferences entitled "Web 2.0" is simplistic. A few searches of the O'Reilly site seems to confirm that they don't make any other "Web 2.0" branded products, so I don't see why you would expect them to try to protect their trademark against non-competing use of the trademark in blogs, book titles, etc. Dave,
Are you basing your argument on some knowledge of trademark law, or are you just pulling this out of your rear end? I don’t see how the argument that O’Reilly *created* the term “Web 2.0″ as the title of a conference, and therefore they have a right to prevent other people from creating competing conferences entitled “Web 2.0″ is simplistic. A few searches of the O’Reilly site seems to confirm that they don’t make any other “Web 2.0″ branded products, so I don’t see why you would expect them to try to protect their trademark against non-competing use of the trademark in blogs, book titles, etc.

]]> By: Cheryl Oakes http://davecormier.com/edblog/2006/05/27/oreillyism-a-conversation-for-open-source-tm-people-everywhere/comment-page-1/#comment-1604 Cheryl Oakes Sun, 28 May 2006 21:01:03 +0000 http://davecormier.com/edblog/?p=57#comment-1604 Opps, I guess I better rename my teacher workshop for this summer to Web 2.1 tools for the Classroom Opps, I guess I better rename my teacher workshop for this summer to
Web 2.1 tools for the Classroom

]]> By: admin http://davecormier.com/edblog/2006/05/27/oreillyism-a-conversation-for-open-source-tm-people-everywhere/comment-page-1/#comment-1595 admin Sat, 27 May 2006 18:41:13 +0000 http://davecormier.com/edblog/?p=57#comment-1595 harold... don't be simplistic. That is the same argument Tom Hoffman made on elearnspace asking how George would feel if someone else made an elearnspace blog. 1. the expression 'elearnspace' or 'edtechtalk' has not gone into common usage. (and i agree with george, if someone wants to use it, there's really not much i can or would want to do about it) 2. a more relevant example would be if someone approached o'reilley about his usage of the word 'web' in his conference title. 3. They trademarked it 3 years ago, and then allowed it to go into common usage and are NOW staking their claim around the world, AFTER people have started using it. see this post http://battellemedia.com/archives/002596.php#comment_28742 as well as many others on this thread. harold… don’t be simplistic. That is the same argument Tom Hoffman made on elearnspace asking how George would feel if someone else made an elearnspace blog.

1. the expression ‘elearnspace’ or ‘edtechtalk’ has not gone into common usage. (and i agree with george, if someone wants to use it, there’s really not much i can or would want to do about it)
2. a more relevant example would be if someone approached o’reilley about his usage of the word ‘web’ in his conference title.
3. They trademarked it 3 years ago, and then allowed it to go into common usage and are NOW staking their claim around the world, AFTER people have started using it. see this post http://battellemedia.com/archives/002596.php#comment_28742
as well as many others on this thread.

]]> By: Harold Jarche http://davecormier.com/edblog/2006/05/27/oreillyism-a-conversation-for-open-source-tm-people-everywhere/comment-page-1/#comment-1594 Harold Jarche Sat, 27 May 2006 17:05:03 +0000 http://davecormier.com/edblog/?p=57#comment-1594 It seems to only apply to the actual name of a conference: "Our service mark applies only to Web 2.0" when used in the *title* of "live events" such as conferences and tradeshows." http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/05/more_on_our_web_20_service_mar.html It would be similar to someone else having a podcast called Ed Tech Talk, n'est-ce pas? It seems to only apply to the actual name of a conference:
“Our service mark applies only to
Web 2.0″ when used in the *title* of “live events” such as conferences and tradeshows.”
http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/05/more_on_our_web_20_service_mar.html

It would be similar to someone else having a podcast called Ed Tech Talk, n’est-ce pas?

]]>