-------- Original Message -------- From: Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl@lkcl.net Apparently from: arm-netbook-bounces@lists.phcomp.co.uk To: Eco-Conscious Computing arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk Subject: Re: [Arm-netbook] pyra computer Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 09:21:27 +0000
On Tuesday, February 6, 2018, Jean Flamelle eaterjolly@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/5/18, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl@lkcl.net wrote:
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 5:28 PM, ronwirring@safe-mail.net wrote:
he means to ask Luke OR ANY MEMBER
Yes. In case lkcl not answering and there are posts on the pyra computer in the arm-netbook Archives, someone else could tell me.
Just my two cents, but this has gotten WAY off topic... amusing as that is for me, its not the purpose of this mailing list... and I don't think it is very helpful.
I wrote 'Can lkcl' not 'arm-netbooks'. That was enough to ignite a request from lkcl to change the phrasing of future posts from me. I could have accepted the request. I did not because I considered my phrasing short, effective and direct. I do not see, why lkcl should limit my free speech on such a minor thing. I should not have gotten the request in the first place.
Lkcl, is my phrasing that annoying or offensive or confusing to you that you believe it is fine to ask me to limit my free speech? Make your argument.
On this email list there is at least one person who dances with profanities. I do not know if there is a rule about that. There should be. I have not corrected that person for such phrasings. For two reasons. It happens rather seldom. And considering how it would limit the persons free speech I refrained.
reminder ron: i set the rules here, you do not. that is my role as lead,
That is correct. How you set your rules and govern them shows people how fit you are on this task.
and you are free to ignore those rules if you are also happy to accept the consequence that i am free to put you into moderation mode (again).
I react to arguments not the fact that I can get excluded.
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
--
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68 _______________________________________________ arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
On Sun, 11 Feb 2018, ronwirring@Safe-mail.net wrote: ...
Lkcl, is my phrasing that annoying or offensive or confusing to you that you believe it is fine to ask me to limit my free speech? Make your argument.
People assuming a right to free speech is so perochial, it's just cute.
Free speech is nothing that you get to demand when you are asking to have your email forwarded by a privately owned server located outside the USA.
Cheers, Phil.
Lkcl, is my phrasing that annoying or offensive or confusing to you that you believe it is fine to ask me to limit my free speech? Make your argument.
People assuming a right to free speech is so perochial, it's just cute.
Free speech is nothing that you get to demand when you are asking to have your email forwarded by a privately owned server located outside the USA.
I don't think he's referring to the USA First Amendment rights. I also believe that instantly associating the "free speech" mentions to a USA law is unnecessarily limiting the conversation. I think he's referring to the concept of "freedom of speech and expression", which is a concept people have been using for a long time, both in our benefit and to our peril, and which has influenced the laws in many countries, not just USA.
Cheers! Arsenijs
On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 5:09 PM, ronwirring@safe-mail.net wrote:
considered my phrasing short, effective and direct. I do not see, why lkcl should limit my free speech on such a minor thing. I should not have gotten the request in the first place.
but you *aren't* free, ron - not in this case. this is not a forum for "free speech". you are here because you are a guest of mine, where i get to set the rules - not you. you are required to respect Copyright Law - which applies SPECIFICALLY to EOMA68 - and you are NOT free to do whatever you like.
you seem to believe that you have the right to do whatever you want: you don't.
every time i have asked you to respect my authority you have ducked or ignored the question.
now, i am going to ask you a REALLY simple question, and i am going to REQUIRE that you explicitly answer.
do you, ron wirring, accept that i am the SOLE EXCLUSIVE Copyright Holder of the EOMA68 Standard?
please answer simply yes or no.
if you do not answer "yes" within 72 hours i will be forced to simply unsubscribe you from this list as your continued - long-standing - lack of respect for my authority can reasonably be interpreted to be a threat not just to the project but also to the safety of ordinary non-technical end-users.
also if you do not answer "yes" i will NOT grant you permission, AS IS MY RIGHT UNDER COPYRIGHT LAW, to utilise the word "EOMA68" in ANY way, shape or form.
are we absolutely clear, ron?
l.
Isn't that a little harsh? Particularly with respect to the time limit. Suppose he gets bumped by some old lady's jeep and can't respond in time because he's in hospital. Unlikely, but possible.
Also, I will point out that there are ways for Ron to feck around with you -- calling it a "PCMCIA computer card", for example. We all know that there's only one of those and so we know EXACTLY what it refers to -- but because it's not the specific sequence of letters and numbers you've trademarked, you can't do anything to reign him in -- despite the fact that you'll probably still have the same liability concerns.
Don't make enemies where you don't have to, Luke. I'm just sayin'.
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 7:23 PM, Christopher Havel laserhawk64@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't that a little harsh?
considering that ron's response time has consistently been within that timeframe... i didn't initially believe so.
Particularly with respect to the time limit. Suppose he gets bumped by some old lady's jeep and can't respond in time because he's in hospital. Unlikely, but possible.
true. if that turns out to be the case, i have no problem with that. Trademark Law, as best i understand it, *requires* that i be "reasonable"... so... yes, thank you for picking up on that, chris.
Also, I will point out that there are ways for Ron to feck around with you -- calling it a "PCMCIA computer card", for example.
true... however Trademark Law *is* sufficiently flexible to recognise these kinds of tricks. it's... time-consuming to go through the process of *proving* that such... underhanded tricks have been "played"... but if there is a reasonable threat to life (as well as the reputation of a Certification Mark) as caused *by* someone trying to weasle their way out of respecting Copyright Law.... *and* it can be demonstrated that - through messages *right here on this list* that they have indeed tried to copy a concept and are intending to bring it into disrepute in the process.... you get where that's going, i'm sure.
Don't make enemies where you don't have to, Luke. I'm just sayin'.
i am not permitted to think in those terms, chris. i am *REQUIRED* to protect the EOMA68 Certification Mark. friends or enemies does not come into the decision-making process, and could actually be viewed as VIOLATING the obliigations of Trademark Law by not being "Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory" (FRAND).
treating someone as a "friend"... and giving them *special privileges*... that could *definitely* be considered to be a violation of the obligations of a Copyright Holder of a Certification Mark.
sorry... but that's just how it is.
i can't mess about here.
l.
I think you're being a bit literal there. I don't see any problem with what Ron is doing. As far as I can tell, he's well within US Copyright Law's "Fair Use" clause (17 USC Section 107). I realize it's more likely to be the Berne Convention that would apply here -- but the Fair Use Clause is something of a benchmark.
I don't see that Ron is intending to derive personal gain or profit from the use case he's come up with. He's just kind of trying to have fun with a hobbyist project. Even if that hobbyist project ends up on e.g. Instructables -- that doesn't reflect on YOU anywhere near as much as it does HIM. Technically, yes, you've made the project possible, but it's HIS project, and it's made pretty clear to anyone who subsequently takes on that project that THEY as a third party (at best) are personally liable for their own feckups -- and I would bet a goodly sum of money (if I had it) that the courts would be all to glad to remind them of this, if it came to that. You'd probably even be able to recoup court costs if anyone was stupid enough to challenge you directly on that one -- it's simply too well established.
Forgive me for sayin' -- but you're coming across as something of a bully here. Your concerns are largely unfounded, given a reasonable, fair, and equitable court system... which, at least for these purposes, is something quite reasonable to expect. I realize I'm not in command, but I'm still going to ask you politely to lay off here.
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 7:46 PM, Christopher Havel laserhawk64@gmail.com wrote:
I think you're being a bit literal there. I don't see any problem with what Ron is doing. As far as I can tell, he's well within US Copyright Law's "Fair Use" clause (17 USC Section 107). I realize it's more likely to be the Berne Convention that would apply here -- but the Fair Use Clause is something of a benchmark.
I don't see that Ron is intending to derive personal gain or profit from the use case he's come up with. He's just kind of trying to have fun with a hobbyist project.
... which is actually *more* dangerous for EOMA68 than anything else, because of the risk to life through failure to properly respect the EOMA68 Standard.
Even if that hobbyist project ends up on e.g. Instructables -- that doesn't reflect on YOU anywhere near as much as it does HIM.
if there is ABSOLUTELY NO mention of "EOMA68" in the (hypothetical) documentation on Instructables.... that would be the case, yes.
if however there is ANY MENTION of EOMA68 on the (hypothetical) documentation, and as a result of (hypothetical) culpable negligance someone ends up dead, then it DOES reflect on me... and as the guardian of the EOMA68 Standard i have to take that really REALLY seriously.
this isn't like Arduino. EOMA68 is a mass-volume standard.
Technically, yes, you've made the project possible, but it's HIS project, and it's made pretty clear to anyone who subsequently takes on that project that THEY as a third party (at best) are personally liable for their own feckups --
they are... as long as they do not try to claim that it has anything to do with EOMA68.
this is Trademark Law. it's not just "plain Copyright Law", chris.
ok let's give an example, here. RYF Certification. that's exactly the same. can you just go "i want to claim i am RYF Certified and that i represent the FSF" without *ACTUALLY* asking them for explicit permission to do so?
Forgive me for sayin' -- but you're coming across as something of a bully here. Your concerns are largely unfounded, given a reasonable, fair, and equitable court system... which, at least for these purposes, is something quite reasonable to expect. I realize I'm not in command, but I'm still going to ask you politely to lay off here.
you can't do that, i'm sorry. you are not the Copyright Holder of the EOMA68 Standard. you are not an authorised, Certified representative, as authorised by me, the Copyright Holder of the EOMA68 Standard, and under Trademark Law i am obligated to inform you - politely - that your request cannot be honoured.
it is with some regret that i have to inform you of that, as you have been so extremely understanding and supportive of this project.
however this is really the first time that this has come up - so there may be a significant number of misunderstandings regarding the difference between "plain old Copright Law" and "Trademark Law" specifically as associated with "Certification Marks".
can i recommend that you (and others) look up what the difference is? it would be very helpful for all of us to go over it.
l.
Ron is not doing anything that will harm your project, Luke. You're seeing daggers in shadows and neither are really there. The sort of thing that Ron is doing happens all the time, nobody in corporate anything has a real problem with it, and the liability is /always/ assigned to the person carrying out the work -- in this case that's a third or fourth party, not you -- if it wasn't like that, there wouldn't BE an Instructables website. There's a TON of precedent here that you're completely ignoring out of irrational fear. You're being extremely myopic and paranoid, without warrant, and --like I said-- you're becoming something of a bully because of it. God, the Universe, whatever you believe in -- SOMEBODY out there gave you a noggin. Use it properly. (Hint: how would the insurance industry deal with the possibility, even, of an Instructables-like website, if liability was assigned to the copyright/trademark/etc holder of the original equipment...?)
I would also note that, given that precedent, you are in danger of doing almost exactly the thing you want to avoid -- giving (in this case quite negative) unwarranted special treatment to a particular party in exclusion of all others. Or do you really feel like you must have an iron grip on absolutely everyone and everything that does anything with your work? IIRC, that's what Sony tried to do with Betamax, and we all know how /that/ turned out...
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Christopher Havel laserhawk64@gmail.com wrote:
Ron is not doing anything that will harm your project, Luke.
he's calling into question my authority and the right as a Copyright Holder of the word - and standard - "EOMA68", chris. that's very very serious. and also publicly recorded. you can double-check that by re-reading the messages.
i am REQUIRED to respond to that - by explicitly asserting that i AM the sole exclusive Copyright Holder of EOMA68 and that i AM the sole exclusive authority over the EOMA68 Standard, and that i cannot tolerate people claiming that they are blithely and arbitrarily permitted to ignore my authority under Copyright Law.
i have to take this responsibility seriously, chris, otherwise we might as well shut the entire project down, right now.
do you wish me to terminate this project - the list, the crowdfunding project, and to delete the EOMA68 standard page and to terminate the rhombus-tech project hosting - RIGHT NOW?
please answer very simply, yes or no.
i am quite happy to do so if people do not wish to take this seriously and respect my authority, position and role as the Copyright Holder and Guardian of the EOMA68 Standard.
l.
I don't see that Ron is doing what you're asserting, therefore I cannot answer your question as you have requested me to do so.
Ron is carrying out a hobbyist project with a product you are seeking to sell. Nothing more, nothing less. There are acres of paper in every law school's public library that attest to the fact that, historically, the liability for such projects lies with the hobbyist -- and that precedent goes back basically to the beginning of time. It's essentially unquestionable. (It's also good, old-fashioned common sense!) If you must insist on seeing that as something else, and therefore an existential threat to your own project, then you /really/ need to talk to your lawyers (and, perhaps, a few other professionals as well), because that would indicate that you have some significant learning to do. I would argue that that learning should come before any further progress on anything else happens, although as you rightly pointed out, I haven't the ability to enforce that sort of a thing.
I understand that you have the /authority/ to shut him down. I myself am not questioning /that/ -- simply whether or not you should /use/ that authority. To me, that would be gross overreach. As a metaphor, I'll point out that every US President since 1945 or so has had the authority to essentially rain nuclear hell down over all of mankind. Thankfully, so far, every US President has seen fit not to use that authority.
As I hinted last time, if what you are asserting was actually true, there would be no Instructables -- or, for that matter, Arduino, probably -- and the world would in fact be a very, very different place for it. I know I hate admitting when I'm wrong -- everybody does -- but sometimes it's easier (and it's always better) than insisting to the end that I'm right and going down in spectacular flames, somewhat like the Hindenburg.
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 3:38 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net
wrote:
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 8:24 PM, Christopher Havel laserhawk64@gmail.com wrote:
Ron is not doing anything that will harm your project, Luke.
he's calling into question my authority and the right as a Copyright Holder of the word - and standard - "EOMA68", chris. that's very very serious. and also publicly recorded. you can double-check that by re-reading the messages.
i am REQUIRED to respond to that - by explicitly asserting that i AM the sole exclusive Copyright Holder of EOMA68 and that i AM the sole exclusive authority over the EOMA68 Standard, and that i cannot tolerate people claiming that they are blithely and arbitrarily permitted to ignore my authority under Copyright Law.
i have to take this responsibility seriously, chris, otherwise we might as well shut the entire project down, right now.
do you wish me to terminate this project - the list, the crowdfunding project, and to delete the EOMA68 standard page and to terminate the rhombus-tech project hosting - RIGHT NOW?
please answer very simply, yes or no.
i am quite happy to do so if people do not wish to take this seriously and respect my authority, position and role as the Copyright Holder and Guardian of the EOMA68 Standard.
l.
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 8:55 PM, Christopher Havel laserhawk64@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see that Ron is doing what you're asserting,
please review the messages, it's very very clear.
therefore I cannot answer your question as you have requested me to do so.
Ron is carrying out a hobbyist project with a product you are seeking to sell.
NO chris. i am NOT permitted to sell product. please understand this! it is good that you are voicing these misunderstandings. Certification Mark holders are NOT PERMITTED TO SELL PRODUCT.
i have to go: i am under time pressure here, please look up Cerficiation Marks ok?
l.
I honestly don't know of a message archive, and my skills at searching through ANY archive have historically been a bit lacking at best. When you have time, point me to (at least a few) specific messages in an archive that make your case, and I'll go from there.
In the meantime, I still think it would be unwise to ban Ron.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 02/13/2018 11:05 AM, Christopher Havel wrote:
I honestly don't know of a message archive, and my skills at searching through ANY archive have historically been a bit lacking at best. When you have time, point me to (at least a few) specific messages in an archive that make your case, and I'll go from there.
The archive itself is here, which you can sort by sender. http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/pipermail/arm-netbook/
In the meantime, I still think it would be unwise to ban Ron.
My sense has been that his disagreement is in list management and standards of polite list etiquette, not an issue with inappropriately moving forward with hardware modifications that are damaging to the standard. Still an issue, and one that could result in a ban from the list aside from certification mark infringement.
Also, I can see that people on this list are reasonably held to a higher standard of adherence to the standard than the general public. After all, everyone here has access to the archives of design, and the ability to ask questions of everyone most involved in making this whole project happen.
Tor
- -- Tor Chantara http://www.fineartmarquetry.com/ GPG Key: 2BE1 426E 34EA D253 D583 9DE4 B866 0375 134B 48FB *Be wary of unsigned emails* Stop spying: http://www.resetthenet.org/
A belated thank you, Tor -- however, the burden of proof rightfully lies with Luke. Further, I have a room in my house to clean out after a catastrophic roof leak (not to mention an impending fight with insurance, which I'm most certainly not looking forward to), and a doctor's appointment on Friday to discuss the limp I've given myself in that now weeks-long process. I don't have the time -- nor do I have the inclination -- to sift and sort and filter through ten plus years of electronic conversation to prove myself wrong.
As such, my request stands -- Luke, and specifically /only/ Luke (unless he appoints someone to his defense), when you have time, please present at least a few messages (or chains thereof) from which a case in your favor can be made. In the meantime, I'd ask what under the law would be called a "stay of execution" (pausing the clock) on banning Ron. No, I can't /force/ it, but it's the right thing to do during the controversy, which is why I'm /requesting/ it.
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 9:05 PM, Christopher Havel laserhawk64@gmail.com wrote:
I honestly don't know of a message archive,
the specific message that i was referring to was only sent about 2 to 3 hours beforehand. you should be able to find it easily by re-reading only about 4 or 5 message back prior to your initial objection... which resulted in an extension of this thread. the archives are where they always have been: http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/pipermail/arm-netbook/
In the meantime, I still think it would be unwise to ban Ron.
i'm not "banning" him... unless he fails to understand and respect Copyright Law and my obligation to follow - to the letter - the FRAND procedures that are clearly documented in Trademark Law, specifically those which are relevant to Certification Marks.
i do not get any choice in this matter, chris.
l.
he's calling into question my authority and the right as a Copyright Holder of the word - and standard - "EOMA68", chris. that's very very serious. and also publicly recorded. you can double-check that by re-reading the messages.
i am REQUIRED to respond to that - by explicitly asserting that i AM the sole exclusive Copyright Holder of EOMA68 and that i AM the sole exclusive authority over the EOMA68 Standard, and that i cannot tolerate people claiming that they are blithely and arbitrarily permitted to ignore my authority under Copyright Law.
Ron seems to be testing your patience... I don't know if banning him will solve your problem, but I definitely think you should put him under moderation again. I know I have made errors too in the past, but I know that challenging you is a very, very dumb and terrible idea. And he has gone way beyond anything stupid I have done on this mailing list. ;/
i have to take this responsibility seriously, chris, otherwise we might as well shut the entire project down, right now.
do you wish me to terminate this project - the list, the crowdfunding project, and to delete the EOMA68 standard page and to terminate the rhombus-tech project hosting - RIGHT NOW?
please answer very simply, yes or no.
Please do not shut this down. I like this idea a lot. I look forward to the shakti processors big time for your modular laptop. :)
i am quite happy to do so if people do not wish to take this seriously and respect my authority, position and role as the Copyright Holder and Guardian of the EOMA68 Standard.
I do respect your authority given you didn't need to do this at all.
I am curious how close you are to sending the beta version.
l.
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
On 2018年02月13日 15:38, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
he's calling into question my authority and the right as a Copyright Holder of the word - and standard - "EOMA68", chris. that's very very serious. and also publicly recorded. you can double-check that by re-reading the messages.
i am REQUIRED to respond to that - by explicitly asserting that i AM the sole exclusive Copyright Holder of EOMA68 and that i AM the sole exclusive authority over the EOMA68 Standard, and that i cannot tolerate people claiming that they are blithely and arbitrarily permitted to ignore my authority under Copyright Law.
Luke, I hope you don't find this to be pedantic, but if you do, I would point out that RMS is very vocal about this point.
Copyright and trademark law are *not* the same thing. You can't hold a copyright on a name, only a trademark. This is an important distinction because the way copyright and trademark laws operate is not the same.
As far as being "required to respond", I assume you are referring to the possibility of genericide of a trademark, when you lose a trademark because you fail to inform the public how it is properly used, causing it to be used to mean something more generic, e.g. if people started calling SEGA video games "Nintendos". This has nothing to do with "liability". It just has to do with whether or not a particular name can still be trademarked.
Either that, or perhaps you are referring to some other law which is neither copyright nor trademark, and spreading confusion by using two wrong terms.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and none of this is legal advice.
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 11:30:49PM -0500, Julie Marchant wrote:
Either that, or perhaps you are referring to some other law which is neither copyright nor trademark, and spreading confusion by using two wrong terms.
In Canada, I've been old that standards marks are legally recognissed as such and are different from either copyright or trademarks. I do not now how this is elsewhere.
-- hendrik
On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Hendrik Boom hendrik@topoi.pooq.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 11:30:49PM -0500, Julie Marchant wrote:
Either that, or perhaps you are referring to some other law which is neither copyright nor trademark, and spreading confusion by using two wrong terms.
In Canada, I've been old that standards marks are legally recognissed as such and are different from either copyright or trademarks. I do not now how this is elsewhere.
IANAL, but I suspect that the confusion arises because Luke is (presumably) the sole copyright holder on the canonical documentation for the standard, so while there is a Certification Mark (which I think is mostly dealt with in line with Trademark law) the thing that defines what the Certification Mark actually means is a copyrighted work.
Of course, mixing those things up, and making assertions about being forced to do things by Copyright Law when it was almost certainly meant to be Trademark Law does not help.
On the other hand I'd say that Luke has free rein when it comes to moderating or expelling people on this list, so the justification is largely irrelevant ... although being even-handed about it is liable to ensure a better atmosphere amongst those who remain.
Cheers, Phil.
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:07 AM, Philip Hands phil@hands.com wrote:
IANAL, but I suspect that the confusion arises because Luke is (presumably) the sole copyright holder on the canonical documentation for the standard, so while there is a Certification Mark (which I think is mostly dealt with in line with Trademark law) the thing that defines what the Certification Mark actually means is a copyrighted work.
.... yes. my understanding is that Trademarks and Cerfitication Marks, by being covered *by* Copyright Law, are in effect a sub-branch of Copyright.
On the other hand I'd say that Luke has free rein when it comes to moderating or expelling people on this list, so the justification is largely irrelevant ... although being even-handed about it is liable to ensure a better atmosphere amongst those who remain.
the key thing is that i am *required* to be FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory). if the entity known as "ronwirring" were just simply told to bugger off, he could perfectly reasonably claim, under trademark / certification mark / copyright law (whichever it is) that he had been "discriminated against" by me, the (copyright) owner of the EOMA68 Certification Mark.
thus i *may* not either:
(a) be nice and let people just do whatever they like
(b) be heavy-handed and indiscriminately expel people from the list just because they're being an arse.
the way round this is to ask the perfectly reasonable question, "are you going to follow the rules" and if the response is either "no" or there *is* no response... *then* i believe that my obligations have been met and i can then drop a shit-metric ton of bricks on their head. and not before then.
complicated and not a lot of fun!
anybody else wants this responsibility they're more than bloody well welcome to it.
l.
On 2018年02月14日 06:45, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
.... yes. my understanding is that Trademarks and Cerfitication Marks, by being covered *by* Copyright Law, are in effect a sub-branch of Copyright.
No, copyright has nothing to do with them. Why do you think copyright has anything to do with anything you are doing?
Copyright is a legal monopoly on the copying and distribution of a work. It was originally invented in Britain as a form of censorship, where the monarch would approve printers to print books in the form of a temporary monopoly. The current incarnation of copyright exists with the justification of encouraging the creation of works, e.g. books. It has nothing whatsoever to do with names or certifications. All that documentation could be in the public domain and it would make absolutely no difference. Heck, a lot of corporate logos are in the public domain; you can't copyright fonts, and logos like that of SONY are nothing but printed text, meaning they can't be copyrighted.
IANAL, of course.
the key thing is that i am *required* to be FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory). if the entity known as "ronwirring" were just simply told to bugger off, he could perfectly reasonably claim, under trademark / certification mark / copyright law (whichever it is) that he had been "discriminated against" by me, the (copyright) owner of the EOMA68 Certification Mark.
That's an issue with patent licensing, yet another completely different issue you're lumping together with this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminatory_licensing
But let's assume that certification marks don't allow you to discriminate against people in relation to it. That would be the granting of certification. Have you threatened to deny certification arbitrarily? No? Good. No one has to be a member of a random mailing list to get certification for a product.
Still not a lawyer, still not legal advice, of course.
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 8:33 AM, Julie Marchant onpon4@riseup.net wrote:
On 2018年02月14日 06:45, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
.... yes. my understanding is that Trademarks and Cerfitication Marks, by being covered *by* Copyright Law, are in effect a sub-branch of Copyright.
No, copyright has nothing to do with them. Why do you think copyright has anything to do with anything you are doing?
Copyright is a legal monopoly on the copying and distribution of a work. It was originally invented in Britain as a form of censorship, where the monarch would approve printers to print books in the form of a temporary monopoly. The current incarnation of copyright exists with the justification of encouraging the creation of works, e.g. books. It has nothing whatsoever to do with names or certifications. All that documentation could be in the public domain and it would make absolutely no difference. Heck, a lot of corporate logos are in the public domain; you can't copyright fonts, and logos like that of SONY are nothing but printed text, meaning they can't be copyrighted.
IANAL, of course.
the key thing is that i am *required* to be FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory). if the entity known as "ronwirring" were just simply told to bugger off, he could perfectly reasonably claim, under trademark / certification mark / copyright law (whichever it is) that he had been "discriminated against" by me, the (copyright) owner of the EOMA68 Certification Mark.
That's an issue with patent licensing, yet another completely different issue you're lumping together with this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminatory_licensing
But let's assume that certification marks don't allow you to discriminate against people in relation to it. That would be the granting of certification. Have you threatened to deny certification arbitrarily? No? Good. No one has to be a member of a random mailing list to get certification for a product.
Still not a lawyer, still not legal advice, of course.
-- Julie Marchant https://onpon4.github.io
Protect your emails with GnuPG: https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
It occurs to me that Luke is a citizen of the UK, and so may not be using US law. The question is which law is he using? That could change things quite a bit.
(Which reminds me that outside of the US, giving legal advice is allowed, even if you aren't a lawyer)
On 2018年02月14日 11:27, Louis Pearson wrote:
It occurs to me that Luke is a citizen of the UK, and so may not be using US law.
Yes, but I see no reason to believe that the U.K. government would unreasonably intertwine these completely unrelated laws together in the way that Luke suggests.
Of course, we do have to know exactly what we are talking about to discuss this properly.
Having reviewed the message in question (as near as I can determine... I believe it to be Ron's email, 11 Feb 2016 at 12:09pm) I still see no problems posed by what Ron is doing or saying.
Luke, I notice that you have not directly responded to any of the ongoing commentary. I would invite you to speak up again and address what has been said since your last message.
On 2/13/18, Julie Marchant onpon4@riseup.net wrote:
On 2018年02月13日 15:38, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
he's calling into question my authority and the right as a Copyright Holder of the word - and standard - "EOMA68", chris. that's very very serious. and also publicly recorded. you can double-check that by re-reading the messages.
i am REQUIRED to respond to that - by explicitly asserting that i AM the sole exclusive Copyright Holder of EOMA68 and that i AM the sole exclusive authority over the EOMA68 Standard, and that i cannot tolerate people claiming that they are blithely and arbitrarily permitted to ignore my authority under Copyright Law.
Luke, I hope you don't find this to be pedantic, but if you do, I would point out that RMS is very vocal about this point.
Copyright and trademark law are *not* the same thing. You can't hold a copyright on a name, only a trademark. This is an important distinction because the way copyright and trademark laws operate is not the same.
As far as being "required to respond", I assume you are referring to the possibility of genericide of a trademark, when you lose a trademark because you fail to inform the public how it is properly used, causing it to be used to mean something more generic, e.g. if people started calling SEGA video games "Nintendos". This has nothing to do with "liability". It just has to do with whether or not a particular name can still be trademarked.
Either that, or perhaps you are referring to some other law which is neither copyright nor trademark, and spreading confusion by using two wrong terms.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and none of this is legal advice.
So this is a pretty solid reference: https://www.bitlaw.com/source/tmep/1306.html
Basically the mark itself is currently ambiguous, so the only known attributes are the text EOMA68. Until an actual mark is finalized, EOMA68, in generic font, is the mark.
This isn't a matter of "genericide" but rather certified versus uncertified. How is the distinction made? Does one just say this is an EOMA68 housing/card? Or, do they say they have EOMA68 certification? The standard usage Luke has maintained is to say something is EOMA68, so, if you're certified, you don't have to say you're certified. This means if you see the word EOMA68 that it is strictly certified.
The name of the card is the Libre Tea, so that's what an hobbyist should say they are using. If a card is plugged into an uncertified housing, that card should no longer fits the criteria for the certification, assuming the standard is worded as it should be.
Why so strict? Luke, wouldn't have to be strict if the certification mark read "certified EOMA68", however, the certification mark is simply "EOMA68", which tactically internationalizes the mark. This way it can be the same across countries with different languages and, anyone able to read those letters can trust the certification, regardless of if they can read the rest of the package.
Say you're Chinese, if you see "EOMA-like" on a package then you might not understand the word like and assume wrongly that the card is EOMA68 certified. Luke is liable for that confusion, because, as a part of the standard, Luke could-have-and-chose-not-to make rules about what countries EOMA68 cards are allowed to be sold in and about what languages labels must be printed in.
So let's say that someone wants to be extra-ecological and not use any packaging, simply having EOMA68 engraved on the card demonstrated certification. If someone resells damaged cards as new, certification mark violation could be a pathway to restitution where there aren't very strong purchaser protection laws. Luke could even define rules for what to disclose about the assurance checks done when reselling a used card. Depending on the jurisdiction, resellers would possibly have to cover or destroy the mark, if they violated any of those rules.
A standard could become very intrusive, if you think about it, but only to protect principles. No matter how intrusive, it has to be FRAND or else courts will order it be dissolved.
If someone is documenting their hobby projects, certifications shouldn't be mentioned and any certification marks should be covered in any images or videos. US law probably doesn't require this and protects their citizens from needing to do this, however Luke may then be required by the laws of other countries to request the content be geo-restricted and pursue the liability of the hosting website if the request isn't honored. The world of international incorporation is fucking complicated.
Disclaimer: [what Julie said^]
It is also important to note that for all intensive an diy project could receive a certification.
Also if you read the first line of that wikipedia article:
"Reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms, also known as fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms, denote a voluntary licensing commitment that standards organizations often request from the owner of an intellectual property right (usually a patent) that is, or may become, essential to practice a technical standard."
Reading between the lines, the point of the "intellectual property" is that it is the leverage has over companies. Without patents EOMA is only a word and EOMA has no legal authority to stop imitators from just using a slightly different word. With a patent however, a standards organization can legally issue a cease-and-desist order.
So this brings up the tough question of how can the EOMA standard exert any authority without patents?
Also what will motivate companies to hire Luke as a consultant? That's important too, am I wrong?
Community support through donations wins Luke a certain degree of independence, so Luke won't have to charge many people consultation fees and can give advice more-solely based on merit. Here's an interesting question though: what motivates people to donate and will that scale as more companies gain interest causing Luke to inevitably need to train people to act as consultants on behalf of the EOMA project? My hope is, yes.
One way to have leverage is for EOMA to become so popular, companies without the mark are actively avoided by a significant fraction of the population in given places. This is not to be underestimated, because food certifications have demonstrated a lot of success with this strategy.
However we should also consider: The patent system isn't necessarily broken, if we consider the rampant abuse to be the result of scammers. We could see copyleft "public commons" patents which are licensed openly to the public so long as certain rules pertaining to certain morals are followed. Like with GPL violations, any member of the public should be able to make a lawsuit against a violator of these rules.
With that possibility in mind, abuse could get worse with copyleft principles, because rules could be stupid or misguided. FRAND already comes into play with that, so there is already an appeals mechanism in place against abusive copyleft or open patent licenses (if I understand correctly). Perhaps patent courts could expand to judge as fair or unfair the rules of an open patent license. Then such standards organizations could form around protecting people and certain morals, by prosecuting violators of these open patents. Ultimately this could easily turn into an extortion racket with people living off of legal and consultation fees. Such an organization should live solely on donations and only conduct legal cases pro-bono.
This is were things get weird.
Aren't you asking, "wait if you just implied we should consider living off of consultation and legal fees immoral extortion, why are you defending patents as a form of leverage used by companies who would be able to do that extortion.. you look like you're contradicting yourself up and down"?
Well, the fact remains the public benefits if the public shares the morals being protected. Legal cases write lots of documentation which the public might like to read, if well written. The more injustice an organization fights this way then the more journalism they have necessarily done and the more journalistic documents they can easily publish. This engineers a service that gratifies donors and will immediately stop if the donations also stop, motivating people not to be selfish.
EOMA standards organizations can also thoroughly document (through transcripts, or audio or video journalism) what they were consulted about and the advice given, so that it becomes easily apparent if they were warning a company that they were consulting for about potential violations or if they instead ever used consultation fees as a mode of extortion.
This mailing list shows EOMA off to a great start in terms open-ness and thorough journalistic documentation of everything going on. I fully support Luke and this project, and this is why I again draw connections between this project and the baby giant company Cloud Imperium Games, for their record-breakingly thorough self-journalism.
I know they aren't FLOSS, but we need to be like them.
Quick post from phone, in my way to bed. Please excuse top-posting and occasional typos, if present.
I have a proposal for Luke that I think would solve this problem instantly.
Let there be two "levels" of EOMA68. "EOMA68" by itself can be construed from now on to mean "compatible with the standard in some reasonable way". Then, /with a separate and distinct but visually similar/ logo - "EOMA68 Certified", which is exactly that.
Anything that can accept an EOMA68 CPU Card (Luke - is that still the right term for the card with the guts?) is at least EOMA68. That's your eBay-and-AliExpress bin, as well as where the hobbyists lurk, and everyone already knows that junk to be questionable at best, so we take advantage of that and use it for our own purposes.
HOWEVER, we simultaneously make sure that everyone /also/ knows that the 'good stuff' is EOMA68-Certified. If it's not -Certified, then it's not trustworthy. Will it work? Maybe. We won't guarantee anything and we won't warranty anything that isn't -Certified. In fact, if we want to be paranoid and iron fisted - stick something in the license that voids all warranties if an EOMA68-Certified device is connected to an EOMA68 non-certified device. That's rude as heck, IMNSHO, but it does the job.
Of course, that's the so called 'Freemium' way of doing things - I friggin hate 'freemium', it's usually incredibly dishonest - but, hey, maybe we can do it right.
What say you, Luke? Float it or sink it... ow, my thumbs... g'nite ya'll...
On Feb 15, 2018 12:32 AM, "Jean Flamelle" eaterjolly@gmail.com wrote:
It is also important to note that for all intensive an diy project could receive a certification.
Also if you read the first line of that wikipedia article:
"Reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms, also known as fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms, denote a voluntary licensing commitment that standards organizations often request from the owner of an intellectual property right (usually a patent) that is, or may become, essential to practice a technical standard."
Reading between the lines, the point of the "intellectual property" is that it is the leverage has over companies. Without patents EOMA is only a word and EOMA has no legal authority to stop imitators from just using a slightly different word. With a patent however, a standards organization can legally issue a cease-and-desist order.
So this brings up the tough question of how can the EOMA standard exert any authority without patents?
Also what will motivate companies to hire Luke as a consultant? That's important too, am I wrong?
Community support through donations wins Luke a certain degree of independence, so Luke won't have to charge many people consultation fees and can give advice more-solely based on merit. Here's an interesting question though: what motivates people to donate and will that scale as more companies gain interest causing Luke to inevitably need to train people to act as consultants on behalf of the EOMA project? My hope is, yes.
One way to have leverage is for EOMA to become so popular, companies without the mark are actively avoided by a significant fraction of the population in given places. This is not to be underestimated, because food certifications have demonstrated a lot of success with this strategy.
However we should also consider: The patent system isn't necessarily broken, if we consider the rampant abuse to be the result of scammers. We could see copyleft "public commons" patents which are licensed openly to the public so long as certain rules pertaining to certain morals are followed. Like with GPL violations, any member of the public should be able to make a lawsuit against a violator of these rules.
With that possibility in mind, abuse could get worse with copyleft principles, because rules could be stupid or misguided. FRAND already comes into play with that, so there is already an appeals mechanism in place against abusive copyleft or open patent licenses (if I understand correctly). Perhaps patent courts could expand to judge as fair or unfair the rules of an open patent license. Then such standards organizations could form around protecting people and certain morals, by prosecuting violators of these open patents. Ultimately this could easily turn into an extortion racket with people living off of legal and consultation fees. Such an organization should live solely on donations and only conduct legal cases pro-bono.
This is were things get weird.
Aren't you asking, "wait if you just implied we should consider living off of consultation and legal fees immoral extortion, why are you defending patents as a form of leverage used by companies who would be able to do that extortion.. you look like you're contradicting yourself up and down"?
Well, the fact remains the public benefits if the public shares the morals being protected. Legal cases write lots of documentation which the public might like to read, if well written. The more injustice an organization fights this way then the more journalism they have necessarily done and the more journalistic documents they can easily publish. This engineers a service that gratifies donors and will immediately stop if the donations also stop, motivating people not to be selfish.
EOMA standards organizations can also thoroughly document (through transcripts, or audio or video journalism) what they were consulted about and the advice given, so that it becomes easily apparent if they were warning a company that they were consulting for about potential violations or if they instead ever used consultation fees as a mode of extortion.
This mailing list shows EOMA off to a great start in terms open-ness and thorough journalistic documentation of everything going on. I fully support Luke and this project, and this is why I again draw connections between this project and the baby giant company Cloud Imperium Games, for their record-breakingly thorough self-journalism.
I know they aren't FLOSS, but we need to be like them.
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
-
Christopher Havel -
Hendrik Boom -
Jean Flamelle -
Julie Marchant -
Louis Pearson -
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton -
Philip Hands -
Pičugins Arsenijs -
ronwirring＠Safe-mail.net -
Tor, the Marqueteur -
zap