RE: Who owns your words? A resolution is needed.

I've seen a good number of posts that include something along the lines of "based on a chatterbox conversation..." or "J. Random Monk gave me the idea in chatterbox...", an no one has problems with these. This leads me to believe that people, in general, don't mind sharing their ideas.

The chatterbox is a different forum then a node. Shorter, usually less formal, more spontanious. Just as an IRC chat with a friend will differ from a paper or presentation, style changes between nodes and chatterbox.

Some of the comments I saw in the chatterbox (self referential, eh?) today had people talking about how they would have to watch what they wrote or not use chatterbox if it was publicly logged. I personally think that that would be a shame for our community.

These give me a default behavior that I can use personally unless asked differently - give credit for good ideas seen in the chatterbox, but no verbatum posts without permission. This might be a good policy for PM to make official, so that people do not have to worry about what they say, like a police state with taps on every phone.

Comments?

=Blue
...you might be eaten by a grue...

Comment on RE: Who owns your words? A resolution is needed.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

RE: RE: Who owns your words? A resolution is needed.
by arturo (Vicar) on Nov 13, 2000 at 22:44 UTC

The chatterbox is a different forum then a node. Shorter, usually less formal, more spontanious. Just as an IRC chat with a friend will differ from a paper or presentation, style changes between nodes and chatterbox.

Clearly, what some monks are concerned about is that offhand, non-verified, etc. comments are going to be taken down and potentially held against them in perpetuity. If you've got a reputation outside the site and your livelihood depends on it, that's potentially worrisome.

I think you're spot-on about the point of the chatterbox. As author of some of the posts you mention, I've found it a fertile ground for new ideas.

OTOH, if the *context* is clearly represented "Mind you, this was a chatterbox log and no opinion expressed herein should be taken as definitive of anyone's considered or even unconsidered opinion, the poster may have been just letting off steam or fooling around, as even Monks need to do occasionally", what's the sense in saying a person will be *misrepresented* by posting a chatterbox log?

[reply]


There's more than one way to do things
	PerlMonks