Peter, I will check again with our lawyers, but I am pretty sure that we cannot "require that no future use be made of the schema.org vocabulary". guha On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:32 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider < pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: > I very much agree with the point made here. > > Further, my reading of the terms indicates that the sponsors could turn > off schema.org and also require that no future use be made of the > schema.org vocabulary. (Of course, I am not a lawyer, so my > interpretation of the English words in the terms might not completely > correspond to their meaning in LegalSpeak.) > > peter > > > > On 09/23/2014 05:30 PM, Renato Iannella wrote: > >> >> You have misinterpreted the point Dan/Peter. >> >> We _all_ know things change - that's why an open and transparent >> Governance process is important. >> >> If something changes, then there is a clear and open process on why/how >> this is handled, and the impact to all stakeholders. >> >> The "with or without notice to you" approach - entrenched into the legal >> Terms of Service - is not such an open process. >> >> Cheers... >> Renato Iannella >> Semantic Identity >> http://semanticidentity.com >> Mobile: +61 4 1313 2206 >> >> >>
Received on Wednesday, 24 September 2014 14:35:37 UTC