[volunteers] [svlug] svlug license on Google video of session

Daniel Gimpelevich daniel at gimpelevich.san-francisco.ca.us
Tue Dec 4 08:29:01 PST 2007


Bear in mind that I'm writing this prior to seeing your other messages.
Sending is another matter, obviously.

On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 02:34:13 -0800, Paul Reiber wrote:

> On Dec 3, 2007 9:20 PM, Daniel Gimpelevich
> <daniel at gimpelevich.san-francisco.ca.us> wrote:
>> On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 20:13:31 -0800, Paul Reiber wrote:
>>
>> > You'd have to ask Google.  SVLUG's not in a position to change the license, but
>> > if we ask really really nicely, they just might do that for us anyway.
>>
>> http://lists.svlug.org/archives/svlug/2007-December/029779.html
>>                                                 --Google
> 
> ,,,not really - yes this is from a Google employee, who's been helping
> in the role of liaison,  but Warren isn't in Leslie's group (that's
> our sponsor) - he's helping us anyway, from personal motivation rather
> than a Google directive.
> 
> If he succeeds in changing Google's mind - great! but just 'cause
> Warren says he'll try something doesn't mean _Google's_ trying that
> same something... just him.
> 
> 
>> http://lists.svlug.org/archives/svlug/2007-December/029794.html
>>                                                 --SVLUG
> 
> ...not really - one SVLUG member, who's been helping in the role of...
> ??? ... but AFAIK Christian's not signed on as an SVLUG volunteer...
> so he's surely not speaking for us...
> 
> 
> BUT - yes -  all in all - it looks like, so long as Warren's able to
> tweak Google's copyrighting of the vids - even the most legally anal
> in SVLUG should be satisfied.
> 
> -pbr

Thank you for pointing out the blindingly obvious fact that neither of
those individuals was speaking for the listed entities. My ascription to
those entities was not of those individuals, but of the remarks they made,
as an "ideal world" scenario that reflects my own viewpoint.





More information about the volunteers mailing list