BGonline.org Forums

My view on information

Posted By: Rich Munitz
Date: Sunday, 30 January 2011, at 4:28 a.m.

In Response To: My view on information (lenny)

As I already stated in another post, Justin was stating his personal opinion in a private email to an individual. The statement you refer to is factual. The USBGF is indeed trying to create more value for its members and I think you will agree that the value is diluted if content is not exclusive. There's nothing wrong with Justin saying "you may not be aware of this". But that absolutely does not mean the USBGF policy is that it should have exclusive rights to this particular content, or that Michael should in any way be limited in his rights to the content he generates on his own. In fact, three members of the Board of Directors - the actual decision making body of the USBGF had already stated their own belief on this forum that Michael was completely within his rights to do as he did and does not need anyone's permission to do so. The only thing we do ask of our members is not to lift member-only content from the usbgf.org website and distribute it to others who do not have the rights to access that content. I don't think anyone has objected to the kind of "fair use" of the member-only material (like referring to PR's) that Michael stated would be reasonable.

Messages In This Thread

• My view on information
  Michael Petch -- Saturday, 29 January 2011, at 10:58 a.m.
  • My view on information
    adambulldog -- Saturday, 29 January 2011, at 3:13 p.m.
    • My view on information
      Michael Petch -- Saturday, 29 January 2011, at 5:09 p.m.
  • My view on information
    Tom Keith -- Saturday, 29 January 2011, at 3:13 p.m.
    • My view on information
      Perry Gartner -- Saturday, 29 January 2011, at 4:12 p.m.
    • My view on information
      Michael Petch -- Saturday, 29 January 2011, at 5:03 p.m.
  • My view on information
    David Rockwell -- Saturday, 29 January 2011, at 3:53 p.m.
  • My view on information
    mamabear -- Saturday, 29 January 2011, at 4:36 p.m.
  • Two Comments to Michael Petch
    Paul Weaver -- Saturday, 29 January 2011, at 4:54 p.m.
    • Two Comments to Michael Petch
      Michael Petch -- Saturday, 29 January 2011, at 5:01 p.m.
      • PS: if you think GnuBG hasn't promoted BG, then I say BS *NM*
        Michael Petch -- Saturday, 29 January 2011, at 5:14 p.m.
      • Thanks for your work on GNU
        Paul Weaver -- Saturday, 29 January 2011, at 5:18 p.m.
        • Thanks for your work on GNU
          Michael Petch -- Saturday, 29 January 2011, at 5:29 p.m.
          • Thanks for your work on GNU
            joe freedman -- Monday, 31 January 2011, at 5:15 a.m.
        • Thanks for your work on GNU
          Rich Munitz -- Saturday, 29 January 2011, at 5:36 p.m.
          • Everyone who has contributed...
            Michael Petch -- Saturday, 29 January 2011, at 5:46 p.m.
            • Everyone who has contributed...
              Seth -- Saturday, 29 January 2011, at 10:47 p.m.
        • Thanks for your work on GNU
          Timothy Chow -- Saturday, 29 January 2011, at 6:57 p.m.
        • Thanks for your work on GNU
          Jason Lee -- Saturday, 29 January 2011, at 10:16 p.m.
          • Thanks for your work on GNU
            Rich Munitz -- Saturday, 29 January 2011, at 11:15 p.m.
            • Time for a new poll?!
              higonefive -- Saturday, 29 January 2011, at 11:55 p.m.
        • Thanks for your work on GNU
          Daniel Murphy -- Saturday, 29 January 2011, at 10:50 p.m.
          • +1
            Casper van der Tak -- Saturday, 29 January 2011, at 11:02 p.m.
          • Thanks for your work on GNU
            Timothy Chow -- Saturday, 29 January 2011, at 11:15 p.m.
        • Thanks for your work on GNU
          Strato -- Sunday, 30 January 2011, at 4:41 a.m.
        • Thanks for your work on GNU
          rew -- Sunday, 30 January 2011, at 11:34 p.m.
      • Two Comments to Michael Petch
        David Rockwell -- Saturday, 29 January 2011, at 5:34 p.m.
      • Two Comments to Michael Petch
        adambulldog -- Sunday, 30 January 2011, at 1:26 a.m.
    • Two Comments to Michael Petch
      higonefive -- Saturday, 29 January 2011, at 9:06 p.m.
      • Two Comments to Michael Petch
        Rich Munitz -- Saturday, 29 January 2011, at 10:55 p.m.
        • Two Comments to Michael Petch
          higonefive -- Saturday, 29 January 2011, at 11:45 p.m.
          • Two Comments to Michael Petch
            Rich Munitz -- Sunday, 30 January 2011, at 12:09 a.m.
            • Two Comments to Michael Petch
              higonefive -- Sunday, 30 January 2011, at 12:57 a.m.
    • Two Comments to Michael Petch
      Jake Jacobs -- Sunday, 30 January 2011, at 2:06 a.m.
      • Two Comments to Michael Petch
        Marty Storer -- Monday, 31 January 2011, at 3:28 p.m.
  • My view on information
    lenny -- Saturday, 29 January 2011, at 11:59 p.m.
    • My view on information
      Rich Munitz -- Sunday, 30 January 2011, at 12:44 a.m.
      • My view on information
        lenny -- Sunday, 30 January 2011, at 3:42 a.m.
        • My view on information
          Rich Munitz -- Sunday, 30 January 2011, at 4:28 a.m.
          • My view on information which is edited.
            higonefive -- Sunday, 30 January 2011, at 12:12 p.m.
            • My view on information which is edited.
              Rich Munitz -- Sunday, 30 January 2011, at 3:06 p.m.
  • My view on information
    Bill Calton -- Sunday, 30 January 2011, at 3:46 p.m.
    • My view on information
      Rich Munitz -- Sunday, 30 January 2011, at 6:01 p.m.
      • My view on information
        Michael Petch -- Monday, 31 January 2011, at 11:42 a.m.
        • Too political ?
          Ray Kershaw -- Monday, 31 January 2011, at 12:45 p.m.
          • Too political ?
            Michael Petch -- Monday, 31 January 2011, at 11:49 p.m.
            • Too political ?
              Rich Munitz -- Tuesday, 1 February 2011, at 3:04 a.m.
              • It is a legit economics question
                Casper van der Tak -- Tuesday, 1 February 2011, at 11:23 a.m.