Hi Tim, Thanks for that clarification. It makes sense to reuse terminology [liberally]. And yes, in the case of the reverse EULA, the vendors would be the requesting parties. On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 12:47 PM Tim Reiniger <tsreiniger@gmail.com> wrote:
Lisa,
The UCITA was adopted by the Uniform Law Commission (ULC) and has been enacted by MD and VA. With the goal of trying to borrow as much existing ULC language as possible for UMA paper, UCITA represents a great source of language. But in years past, there were concerns raised about some of the aspects that don’t affect the purposes of the paper. This was before my time, so I haven’t given attention to the ABA politics on the matter.
The reverse EULA licensing idea sounds interesting. Would the vendors be the Requesting Parties and/Clients (in UMA parlance)?
Tim
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 18, 2019, at 5:30 PM, Lisa LeVasseur <lalevasseur@ieee.org> wrote:
These comments/questions may be mainly for Tim: I'm trying to better understand the foundational laws referenced in the Licensing Model. As I look more closely at UCITA, I wonder about the inclusion of it as a reference in general, since the ABA withdrew their support/endorsement of it--if I'm understanding correctly?
Also, out of curiosity, has there ever been consideration of a reverse-EULA as the legal mechanism for users to grant a right to use license (ala what's enabled in UMA) to vendors? A "Vendor Licensing Agreement"?
Lisa
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 6:49 AM Eve Maler <eve@xmlgrrl.com> wrote:
We're up to five "regrets" now. If it's just me, I'll drop the line after 10 minutes, and just keep working on business-legal tasks and email responses!
*Eve Maler*Cell or Signal +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 6:15 AM Eve Maler <eve@xmlgrrl.com> wrote:
I’ve gotten three “regrets”, so it might be a short meeting today. If anyone else can’t make it, let me know.
Eve Maler (sent from my iPad) | cell +1 425 345 6756
On Jun 17, 2019, at 6:09 PM, Eve Maler <eve@xmlgrrl.com> wrote:
8am PT at https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/857787301
Tim has sent me some thoughts on the "Proxy" discussion; I'd like us to sort through that. Also, Cigdem and I had a chance in London last week to talk about how the use cases could be described with a more formal calculus, so let's pursue that.
(And yes, we do have a "regular" WG call on Thursday -- please plan to attend that one so we can discuss the IETF/contribution topic!)
*Eve Maler*Cell or Signal +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl
_______________________________________________ WG-UMA mailing list WG-UMA@kantarainitiative.org https://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-uma
_______________________________________________ WG-UMA mailing list WG-UMA@kantarainitiative.org https://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-uma