How does it affect user groups Re: [SGVLUG] Linux Trade mark ...

[Emerson, Tom]

> -----Original Message-----
> Behalf Of David Lawyer
> > Emerson, Tom wrote:
> > >>-----Original Message-----
> > >>Behalf Of Dustin
> > >>[...]  We may actually be using it without proper
> > >>attribution, though, and ...  We should probably do this anyway 
> > >>because (IIRC) acknowledging their ownership of the mark 
> > >>strengthens their claim and makes it easier (read: less 
> > >>costly in the long run) to defend it.
> > >>   
> > >Since this came up on the eve of rolling in a new website, 

OK -- moot point -- it was trivial to add [see below] and this has been the only negative post on the subject, everyone else has been positive or supportive of the idea.

> I would oppose it on principle that attribution is a big waste of
> time (including reader's time) and bandwidth.

As Dustin pointed out elsewhere in this thread, one line of text wastes far less "bandwidth" than the behind-the-scenes overhead of the markup language used [hint: try "view source" on any website]  Even your "plain text" version that sprung from an automated re-write of linuxdoc tags has at least 8-10 lines of "preamble" before you even get to something the user even sees.

As for effort to include it?  Very little: Mambo lets you create an arbitrary block-of-text as a "module".  Modules are then placed in "locations", and are referenced in any templates you use like this:

    <?php mosloadmodules ( 'footer' ); ?>

(this particular example would load any "modules" that are located in an area called "footer")  This block of PHP code could be in a table cell or "just before the </body> tag" or anywhere else that you feel is appropriate.

Attribution is also a useful (and sometimes mandatory) for thanking people who provide things like power, bandwidth, IP address, and rack space so that our site even EXISTS in the first place.  As you may recall, our old site placed a link to Pasadena Networks [Frank's company] that was far more prominent than in a "footer" [which is relatively easy for most people to ignore]

> I think the danger of a
> lawsuit from LMI is less than that of being struck by lightening on
> the way to a LUG meeting.

True, but either of these events would be just as devastating -- either you would cease to exist [if struck by lightning] or SGVLUG would [if LMI found us on their radar]