[ELECTRON] Fwd: [ok-scotland] Fwd: Barcamp Glasgow/in principle discussion

[Paola Di Maio]

Thank you Andy

the link to the lecture is good

I may be able to forward to the list a discussion I am having offlist with a
law practitioner
since I do not have time to duplicate my arguments (may srtip off his
identity)

I do not feel the need to protect Bacamp name other than 'in principle' at
this moment
(as prominently stated in the subject line), and at this stage I agree with
you that
I/the public would be the best 'advocate' in this case

But do consider it an interesting case to raise, if necessary  set a
precedent,



cheers

P



On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Andrew Back <andy at smokebelch.org> wrote:

> On (09:58 13/06/10), Paola Di Maio wrote:
> > One more v quick thing, for the record only:
> >
> >
> >  by suggesting a lawyer i was not thinking 'litigation', but should the
> > 'culture' message not
> > get anywhere,  lawyers tend to be able to find the right arguments (in
> this
> > case the de facto trademark argument)
>
> In my experience, you are extremely fortunate if you can find a lawyer that
> is willing to take on your cause unless it is precisely their specific area
> of law and you are a paying client. Even when lawyer friends have offered
> advice - e.g. on dealing with a landlord that has decided they are entitled
> to keep a deposit because it looks like someone may have actually lived in
> their property - it has been under the condition that their name is kept
> out
> of the matter.
>
> I'm sure there will be a relevant code of practice etc.
>
> > I agree there are too few decent lawyers around (and one of the reasons
> why
> > I will continue to study jurisprudence, to defend
> > myself from bad /would be lawyers all around the world)
>
> You need to find a lawyer that is passionate about Barcamps, or maybe even
> just open source, creative commons or open data etc. I.e. someone who is
> more likely to be attuned to the cause.
>
> FWIW, I reckon you'd have a hard time defending Barcamp when its loosely
> defined and not registered, unless you, say, got the originators and some
> interested legal types behind the cause. Of course, IANAL.
>
> If you are determined to see that Barcamp is afforded some protection, I'd
> recommend heading along to the SCL Scotland Annual Lecture in Edinburgh at
> the end of the month:
>
> http://www.scl.org/site.aspx?i=ev16408
>
> In fact I'd recommend anyone interested in F/OSS attends.
>
> Not only would you get the chance to hear an inspirational address from non
> other than Eben Moglen, but there might be an opportunity to solicit casual
> opinions from a legal expert or two. I'd certainly imagine most, if not
> all,
> of Scotland's free software supporting legal profession to be in
> attendance.
> It goes without saying, of course, that tact would be required, and
> appearing to have gatecrashed such an event purely for the purposes of a
> bit
> of free legal advice on your pet cause, would likely not go down very well.
> Fortunately, protecting the brand value created by grassroots
> Internet-based
> communities, is clearly something that should concern free software
> advocates.
> However, it must be noted that not all attendees may be free software
> advocates, and some may simply be there to top up their CPD hours, or
> possibly even be detractors who instead favour things like software
> patents.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andrew
>
> --
> Andrew Back
> a at smokebelch.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> members mailing list
> members at electronclub.org
> http://lists.electronclub.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/members
>
> Instructions for changing your mailing list settings:
> http://lists.electronclub.org/emailhowto.html
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electronclub.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20100613/0b35c766/attachment.htm>