{{{ Vantrax, about ownership? or anything-wise I am wondering the same thing why are we re-creating the license issue ? http://www.ubuntu.com/legal surely this has come up before ? with wiki ? forums ? I think it is clear that the wiki content is owned by the author is there a community standard ? and if so, should we not follow it ? yes, if there is kubuntu wiki is in public domain but from what mako was saying it seems like wiki hasnt even discussed it cprofitt: how does the wiki define author ? as that is where the wiki 'legal' link takes us many pages are worked on by many people that is the issue cprofitt I would think a wiki author is rather odd since multiple people can be an author you might create a course, then I can go edit it and improve it, then bodhi can. Who says you own it but there is a history so the author of each part could be determined in moodle too? Vantrax, given what I know about CC (which is minimal) each would own their derivative i do not think that is what it says cprofitt quote - the author in the case of content produced elsewhere and reproduced here with permissio This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work even for commercial reasons, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical terms. next statemetn or Canonical or its content suppliers so the content is either owned by Canonical tha's the by-sa license or if content is reproduced with permission it belongs to the author well if Canonical and Ubuntu do not have specific legal language concerning the ownership or status of wiki content then the author would have the copyright by US law so I'm leaning towards' cprofitt's interpretation Furthermore they say You are welcome to display on your computer, download and print pages from this website provided the content is only used for personal, educational and non-commercial use. which is what I would bet most of us would agree to for our project I would prefer to still allow commercial uses... for multiple reasons. so why not use the same license on our site ? but would like to have a clarification from Canonical I prefer NC ahh, educational use is fine under NC? If someone wants to use it for commercial purposes we can discuss a donation for server and bandwidth well... if we license with NC then Canonical could not use our material I think we should look at NC with waivers granted cprofitt: we can still allow canonical to use it Vantrax -- is New Horizons educational or commercial? It does not say that here http://www.ubuntu.com/legal we own the content and can relicense by-nc-sa:This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical terms. Vantrax, that would be up to the author who holds ownership +1 Vantrax no cprofitt I would say educational falls under that which is the point in making the ownership held by the project only if we publish content with permission from an author is New Horizons commercial or Educational so the project board can allow exceptions as needed linky new horizons Let me quote again - for profit educational The website HTML, text, images audio, video, software or other content that is made available on this website are the property of someone bodhizazen, so we would ask that authors relinquish ownership of their content? the author in the case of content produced elsewhere and reproduced here with permission absolutely cprofitt bodhizazen, I do not need to be re-read the lingo if you use nc, you don't need permission I differ in my interpretation of what it means just attribution next ilne or Canonical or its content suppliers the language there may or may not apply to the wiki we can specificy our interpretation of NC as part of the CC statement you know and provide exceptions Cannonical owns it unless the content is reproduced with permission +1 Vantrax I see no reason we can not claim ownership bu the UCLP, unless content is published with permission the legal link is on www.ubuntu.com not wiki.ubuntu.com and I see no reason we can not allow Canonical to use the material, at least that has been our intent and I'll point again to the kubuntu wiki being classified as "in the public domain" in 2006 why is the location of the link important cprofitt ? first: if UCLP owns it... it can grant permission to Canonical assuming the CC allows waivers and exceptions we can recycle 90% , with permission and s/Canonical/UCLP/g ill say it again, the Wiki team never decided or even looked at the legal side and make and exception for Canonial mako noted that when we went to CC and said they would have to look into it second: you would have to have some language or an agreement with authors to remove their ownership of the content they produce I think we are asking for trouble and headaches if we (UCLP) do not own the content Canonical is on VERY weak ground if they claim ownership of community wiki content course 1 is NC, canonical not allowed as they do not have anyone sign an agreement course 2 is canonical only course 3 is .... and author 2 wants ... author 3 wants etc maybe my understanding is imperfect, but if I create content and license it using nc. I only own my exact versions. changes to my versions, properly attributed, belong to the next author. cprofitt: none of this has been tested in court =) or very little so why worry about ownership? https://help.launchpad.net/Legal bodhizazen, actually some of 'this' has been tested in court dthacker: first contenet needs to be managed some yes cprofitt dthacker, you are correct an author can not without an agreement with a publisher relinquish his/her rights to their product at least in the US that is why most forums have some form of legal agreement about having license to USE posted content they do not claim ownership though ok board is now an administrator thanks Vantrax That is not the only reason they do not claim ownership cprofitt nothing in the launchad link about nc I am sure there are many bodhizazen what are the ones you are aware of IMO the main reason they do not claim ownership is they are nor reviewing and approving the content dthacker, exactly... the wiki for Lauchpad is just CC-BY Take the UF how many thousands of posts are there ? does canonical review wiki articles? UG can not be responsible for the content of all those posts Most forms do not want that responsibility bodhizazen: ownership and control are 2 different issues. I can write a deficient tutorial. I own it, but there is no need for UCLP mod's to accept it. wiki and UCLP are different in that respect and your all in the team now our content is moderated https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DocumentationTeam/License?action=show&redirect=DocteamLicense I understand that dthacker , lol so why have to own it all? https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DocumentationTeam/License I am saying if we publish content we need to : 1. own it There is no reason that I can think of for UCLP to 'own' the product of the authors unless we are reporducing content in which case 2. we need permission cprofitt: +1 IMO, we need to approve published content, not own it Unless the UCLP wants to pay me I would want to OWN my product I'm with dthacker on this one and through publishing my work as CC-BY-SA they are allowed to use it It may be my understanding that is off then :) just as coders contribute code under GPL - they still own any code they originate from my understanding if we want to use NC we would need to have the rights assigned to relicence it and to allow waivers to the licence for approved educational areas Vantrax, hence why I prefer to not use NC they own it, but cannot control it under GPL ultimately I really think we should follow the DocTeam lead and keep NC out of it Vantrax, I agree From this page http://www.ubuntu.com/legal but they can stop making it GPL in the future... I own code in tikiwiki, (very little), but the relaese manager decides if it goes out the door . Home Legalese * Terms and conditions associated with use of this web site, and the Ubuntu distribution. Copyright The website HTML, text, images audio, video, software or other content that is made available on this website are the property of someone - the author in the case of content produced elsewhere and reproduced here with permission, or I can see the benefit of both honestly see Zen after Cytrix bought it... or VirtualBox after SUN bought it or Canonical or its content suppliers. Before you use this content in some way please take care to ensure that you have the relevant rights and permissions from the copyright holder. pleia2: a belated +1 bodhizazen, why do you keep reposting that... when we discuss things with dinda, we can bring the DocTeam's license in as an example of an officialish resource that is not NC Tell me why we do not want our lega page to read similar ? cprofitt: ^^ I am with bodhi on that one I would prefer our legal page to actually be clear. because we're not canonical, we're a community project, not a commercial one. the one you keep posting is not clear simply change Canonical to UCL ? clear means big argument and headaches:P UCLP ? and we are NOT a for profit organization yes that is trye true we are looking at www.ubuntu.com and wiki.ubuntu.com and it is unclear if the legal statement on www applies to wiki i do not like the idea of a university using our material and bandwith tho, it is going to be expensive for bodhi if that happens it is also impossible to determine which content on the wiki was produced elsewhere their wording is 'poor' at least not without saying something and if their lawyer was here I would tell him so might be wrong, but Vantrax, using our bandwidth is a different issue we are mixing issues cprofitt: +1 yeah your right Vantrax, yes we may have to have connection rules or bandwidth rules, but they could use content on their own moodle sever server Moodle courses are portable as I proved by uploading the ones I did. indeed \o/ portability what is wrong with this then cprofitt http://paste.ubuntu.com/197435/ i am reasonably fine with the CC-BY-SA license, but I do have a few conserns which are the same ones that dinda had We really do not need to use the CC-BY-SA, that is not the only option true other options? http://paste.ubuntu.com/197435/ bodhizazen, so in the case of a course I author given what you posted - I would be the copyright holder which is very similar to what others use :) I'd prefer not to wander into the land of exotic licenses not at all cprofitt I disagree bodhizazen you would hold the copyright if you authored material since my course would be produced elsewhere which we then wanted to reproduce and we asked your permission and you gave it to us and I would grant you rights to use it by publishing it CC-BY-SA but I would still own it In that case, it it were published elsewhere, that would be correct agrees with cproffit afk a few it would not be correct if it were published on the UCLP your legal did not make any claim about published bodhizazen so you are incorrect in your assertion it can be changed cprofitt , now I think you are being difficult :) bodhizaen: the act of publishing a course is not enough for the UCLP to claim ownership, they would need to make change to it. an author of a book (unpublished) would not lose their copyright if a publishing house published it based on a manuscript they sent in I disagree dthacker it's in the CC by SA license you can disagree bodhizazen but I think legal folks will disagree How is it then that on this page I can ask the copyright and patent lawyers my mother-in-law works for. yeah, copyright (in the US anyway) is automatically granted http://www.ubuntu.com/legal we have seen that already bodhizazen Canonical claims copyright then ? which is why any wiki content I am the author of is my copyright not Canonical's since I produced it elsewhere Or are you saying that they are not claiming copyright and by posting it I granted them permission to use it their language is such they would have a hard time removing my copyright that may have been their intent, but they would likely fail in the US at least I think you are switching horses in the middle of the river and bing difficult =) not all content on th eUCLP will be authored elsewhere some will come from wiki is there actually anyone in favor of NC? so we need permission * jldugger is now known as pwnguin some may come from forms so again we need permission bodhizazen, I am not for repacking the content that is already posted elsewhere I would simply point people at it... some , for example questions, may come from us, the UCLP that should be effective in avoiding the legal issues in the case of the latter, the UCLP owns the content bodhizazen: if you need to use something verbatim, you cite the source and go on. Fair use. Well, that is why you need to be more specific whey you say ownership or copy righted dthacker: I am not debating that http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/legalcode why are you posting that cprofitt ? http://www.copyrightaid.co.uk/forum/topic27.htm bodhizazen: ownership is a charged word. CC-BY-SA specifically says I own my content. Others use of my content never affects my ownership. That is why the license is useful. informational for the discussion +1 dthacker In short my understanding is that while you are the copyright owner, by posting on the forum you have already given the site owner permission to use your work. that was in the discussion I do not think I used that word once here : http://paste.ubuntu.com/197435/ nope, no ownership used there http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum44/2201.htm why are we discussing CC-BY-* if no other group in Ubuntu uses it ? bodhizazen, you are correct you did not ... it doesn't use the word ownership, but it does assert that ULCP owns something which a) ULCP is not a legal entity b) requires transfer of copyright, since there are no works for hire bodhizazen, we are discussion CC-BY-* because it is a way for authors to produce work and allow it to be shared while protecting their work cprofitt: +1 it is, to my knowledge, the best license for the type of work we are discussing honestly, a straw poll seems like it would be effective in determining what is truly being debated here and the most likely to attract authors Well I think we are off topic is we are the only group in the Ubutnu community to use this license :) general copyright statement meant to limit liability or assert ownership on a website would not be a good method "we're special" we are the only group? the wiki? what does the wiki use ? public domain forums ? MOTU ? unknown bodhi did you read the link I posted to the Launchpad wiki? motu uses DFSG Launchpad ? launchpad uses cc-by-sa and cc-by-sa i believe is dfsg depending onthe version because yes, the fine print matters https://help.launchpad.net/Legal https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DocumentationTeam/License?action=show&redirect=DocteamLicense that is the wiki doc team content https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DocumentationTeam/License that's 2 dthacker, launchpad uses different CC licenses according to that page You keep giving me links that specify who owns something or who has the copy right You asked who uses CC I thought bodhizazen and then tell me we do not want to do that :) So again ... The documentation contained in the Launchpad Help wiki, the Launchpad Development wiki, and on the Launchpad blog is owned by Canonical Ltd and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 UK: England & Wales License. I want to use CC-BY-SA bodhizazen: i'd call them acceptable terms of contribution why do we not want the same thing ? false logic: licensing != ownership ie, you can own a document and contribute it to ubuntu onder cc-by-sa bodhizazen, that is fine... but as pwnguin has pointed out UCLP != Canonical The documentation contained in the UCLP is owned by the UCLP and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 UK: England & Wales License. in the case of courses the author would OWN the work and they would publish it under CC-BY-SA That is the same wording as LP changing Canonical to UCLP great. if the wiki asserts ownership of content, thats a little wierd and you should ask make for cliarficiation I am not sure if UCLP can own something as it has no legal standing or substance mako I prefer to have the authors OWN the work and publish it via CC-BY-SA That is a poor argurement cprofitt :) the wiki asserts ownership only if the content was not produced elsewhee pwnguin we an either ask to be owned by Canonical or we can draft a LLC bodhizazen: there's no way you'll be able to incorporate ULCP if i publish it with CC-by-sa then I will own it so likely an author would OWN their work cprofitt: i see a (c) canonical 2008 bodhizazen, my argument is no more poor than yours OK, well with that I think we have made as much progress as can be expected for a day :) incorporating UCLP adds no value you'd at least be able to assign copyright ownership to UCLP since the ubuntu foundation is a facade pwnguin, https://help.launchpad.net/Legal/ProjectLicensing but i have yet to see a case made for transfer of ownership cprofitt: those are the terms for using launchpad for free. what of it? you know, I think the best we can to is make the material we publish accurate, helpful, and available for others to improve. control of "ownership" is not necessary for that to be honest I really see no value in breaking down Canonical's poor legal wording on their website as we should be concerned with how we want to license our product to be clear * pwnguin prefers courseware be licensed under cc-by-sa. pwnguin, I think the language there indicates that not all content on launchpad is 'OWNED' by Canonical cprofitt: not really, but it's irrelevant as you point out * dthacker prefers cc-by-sa, but could live with nc if Canonical claimed ownership of all things on Launchpad there would be no need to tell people how to license their project I prefer CC-BY-SA if Canonical requires us to use NC to get the Ubuntu word in our name I would consider it i would consider that newsworthy I would not consider asking authors to grant Canonical or UCLP (assuming it had a legal form) 'ownership' I can see requiring them to use CC-BY-SA, but not turning over ownership * bodhizazen has quit ("http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client") ok lets can this arguement because we are going round in circles. Not much point in NC because we couldnt enforce it. We cant legally own copyright because we are not a legal entity at least based on what I know as of now Vantrax, +1 I hope bodhi comes back... i think this argument is going in circles because a key player isn't present in negotiations We can rewrite anything ourselves that is that valueable and doesnt have a compatable license he is the one pushing hard for NC is he? I know why he is too he is or he believes that Canonical is asking us too... please share Vantrax but it creates an ever expanding problem if we do we then have to have permission to relicense and make exemptions to the -nc part of the license that will be very difficult to sell http://mailman.uwc.ac.za/pipermail/nextgen-online/2006-May/010993.html we also cannot enforce it Vantrax, we would not have permission to relicense just because we use NC if we have ownership we do... that was the issue but using BY-SA would not require relicensing we would have to have permission, in writing, or ownership cprofitt: all i meant was that there's this vague and awkward copyright canonical; if there's an intended assertion to ownership of contributions it seems contrary to public perception and actions undertaken that is its biggest attraction authors publishing under BY-SA would automatically be granting UCLP the right to use it yes pwnguin, I agree not that we would need it because its BY-SA keeping a list of contributors to a course would become a problem you have to attribute the original author, and every other person that worked on it at present I think we need to clarify Canonical's actual request or stance on the issue Vantrax, correct yes, but im assuming im right on that attribution is mandatory, essentially it should not be hard to track that... no getting around that; we have tools for this, however i dont know how well moodle hadles them pwnguin, have you looked at the three courses I uploaded not yet honestly, its been busy at work lately with the new semester and the recent conflict about -nc seems disconcerting you'd think the moodle instance would be in the topic * dthacker needs to get some work done. Later all. pwnguin, yes... it is a hang up... we had decided on a license, but the issue has come back up and I doubt we can move forward until it is resolved and it appears to have the possibility of destroying the effort i dont understand it; -nc is pretty much discriminatory against field of endevor and clearly non-free which is why we must be willing to listen and address people's concerns -NC for me is not compatible with Free Software as Stallman would have it but I do understand the desire by some to use the license two of the courses I uploaded are NC its silly; you can find entire courses on MINIX under more liberal licenses I think CC-BY-SA assuming no Canonical issues. we need to have a proper board meeting with billy and belinda and resolve it the shadow board http://learn.ufbt.net/mod/resource/view.php?id=29 that is the license for the third course I guess it is possible to license each course individually, but I would not want to do that because of the complexity of managing that i can understand a few high profile exceptions even debian compromises a few would be ok... agreed but i think it's vanity to assume projects on UCLP are going to be so high profile that people will seek them out and "steal" them multiples in the hundreds would be a nightmare pwnguin, I agree I also think allowing a training company to download and host our courses while charging for the training is acceptable god it cant be worse than the status quo lol http://jldugger.livejournal.com/19709.html pwnguin: honestly I suspect the reason the ubuntu wiki folks havent put a ton of thought into it is because they feel the same - not worth arguing over, and who will really steal it all anyway? will we actually go after them legally? pwnguin: ewwwwww pleia2, I agree... how do you guys feel about author ownership -- is that ok or is there some need for UCLP to find a way to own the content? it's ok, I see no reason for UCLP to own the content i thought the linux kernel settled the whole copyright assignment debate lol I have no clue about the Kernel maybe it was the colonel though, heh? we don't need to own the content. the kernel is owned in aggregate we meaning UCLP in contrast with the FSF, which requires copyright assignment for serious contributions dthacker, I got ya I need to get to sleep -- it is late and this discussion has taken most of my free time today ... sorry that it took up your time as well... but we need to navigate the waters with caution }}} {{{ hello all pleia2, has dinda been in at all today? cprofitt: she joined the channel this morning, but I haven't seen her talk anywhere today ok... thanks. what about doc? nope I think we should put licensing discussion on the back burner for the moment the wiki is operating without such a thing and ask for advice from outside this group we can decide to discuss this with the CC and or dinda ? or whoever we wish I also think we need to look at what the rest of the community does The other option would be to hire a lawyer to draft something for us I would consider covering the cost of that last option cprofitt: I'm here for about 20 minutes dinda - on licensing Is Canonical ok with us using CC-BY-SA or would they prefer NC? cprofitt: ack - I can speak for myself not Canonical, would have to run it by the lawyers if the CC-SA only were used ok... Bodhi was concerned and we wanted to clarify that. I know the stuff you produce - that we may point people to as a resource - is NC i * think* the why this material is different is b/c we have somewhat competing training materials With the exception that we will never 'certify' someone... the desktop course was Canonical's first attempt at producing community developed materials yeah, the difference is what is tripping us up I think, the DocTeam uses all CC-BY-SA so I was hoping we could just follow their lead pleia2: yip, except there is no Canonical commercial equivalant to the DocTeam materials * pleia2 nods let me go ahead and pass it by our legal. . . that would be fantastic dinda thanks :) I appreciate it afaik sabdfl or no one else on the CC has any issues with the license you folks want to choose dinda, we just want to make sure... no sense in getting started and having an issue down the road we do not wish to bite the hand that is 'feeding' us it's b/c I know our agreements with training partners has some exclusivity clauses in regards to materials that I can see some potential conflicts but we also would like the product to be as 'F'ree as possible while encouraging the adoption of Ubuntu with our produced courses or in our potentially 'using' Canonical's products? they (training partners) might be able to complain b/c we point folks to "free" resources on the same site we are trying to get folks to look at their offerings got it... * dinda goes to review the training partner agreement quickly but what if the training partners were able to use our courses? If we go NC they would not be able too... The course material is only one part... providing a lab and a live instructor is another There may be a win-win for the training providers if we keep building and improving the courseware and they can use it in their commercial training just to 'flip' the coin on it... does that make any sense? what is the official name of this project again? pleia2, dinda - did I lose you guys? Ubuntu Community Learning Project cprofitt: training partners can't use your materials, they can only use Canonical materials dinda, because of the agreement with Canonical? cprofitt: correct ok... cprofitt: no, I don't really have any input until we understand the legal implications WRT canonical hmm... I see some 'ways' around that, but we would have to talk to legal... and I do not know the structure in place currently I understand where the logjam could be better now though... I assume Canonical currently 'sells' the training to the partners and personally I don't have any issues with the license but in my view as a potential community contributor I'd prefer my work here not be used by anyone for commercial purposes. . .inlcuding canonical how about a statement from the board along the lines of "it is the intention of the UCLP to adopt CC-BY-SA by default materials", and ask Canonical legal for approval? dinda, the concern I have is the 'definition' of commerical.... is a College commercial if it is a private institution? with Docs it's a bit easier b/c all that is integrated and while I suppose someone could take all the system docs and charge for it, don't think it would sell Is a college like Bryant and Stratton - which is a career ed college that charges per the course and only has associates degrees commercial cprofitt: a college is a commercial regardless of non-profit status b/c they are selling the materials by way of charging tuition dinda, that is what I thought... others were trying to say that they are not... dinda: this ties your hands you know. if a team of say ten people update some courseware to reflect new releases of software, you now need ten sign offs to profit from your own work + theirs State Schools may be non-commercial as are K-12s that are public I was really hoping to have 'schools' be able to use the material... as I feel they are they key turning the worm dinda: generally, and ive spoken to lawyers in a "I am not your lawyer" status about Creative Commons, a college is designated non-commercial the NC was a way to try to appease our corporate folks that we weren't giving the course materials away. . .though I've been advocating conceding the desktop course to the community and changing the license presumably, there's some international problems regarding NC canonical is not incorporated in the US with my Canonical hat on: I'm concerned that training partners will be upset if they realize we are hosting or in this case pointing to the community site, yet in our agreements with them we kind of tie their hands pwnguin: yes we are oh? pwnguin: there is a Canonical USA interesting Canonical Ltd in the UK and also incorporated in the Isle of Man Canonical has subsidiaries in several countries now including Taiwan and the US dinda, I would like to suggest that the courseware be free... but the exam and ability to 'certify' people be '$$$' but as I do not know the business arrangement with the partners it is hard to know how that fits the business model that Canonical has in regards to training so i'm drafting an email to our legal team right now to get their opinion and to make sure there are no legal objections to Canonical pointing the community site and our paid partners dinda, I do appreciate that... I have a greater perspective on this now... I certainly want to make it fit. pwnguin, in regards to schools I would not think that all Universities / Colleges are non-commercial * dinda puts on her community hat: the CC-by-SA seems to work fine for docs and I'm personally "ok" working on such a project knowing full well my contribution has no protection from those who want to reuse for comercial purposes cprofitt: probably, devry and so on ar enot some maybe, but I am not sure how the difference between a training company and a college would be defined cprofitt: incorporation status State operated learning institutions would likely be, but private... that would get murky cprofitt: inthe states it gets even trickier b/c of accrediation issues with educational institutions. . . * cprofitt shakes his head lawyers... then again, it's just one lawyer's suggestion, with no particular credentials other than working for a college and attending a copyright session cprofitt: for example we were told in Texas, the training companies have to abide by certain rules and can't offer courses to individuals, only to companies b/c of non-compete issues with shcools * cprofitt sigh cprofitt: yeah, and it all seemed so simple! ;) pwnguin, yeah we have had three different interpretations on 'fair use' in regards to K-12 cprofitt: don't worry, it will get simpler again once we get the lawyers ok - promise dinda, I am not worried... it just means we have to go slow... which many of us knew to being with a few wanted to move at warp speed, but that is just not possible cprofitt: ok email sent to lawyers * cprofitt smiles thank you very much dinda cprofitt: np * dinda waves as I head off to a baseball game good luck dinda }}} update {{{ cprofitt: doctormo_ pleia2 et al: I have something of an answer from our legal team great dinda: great * doctormo_ is now known as doctormo unfortunately, as with most legal things, I'm not sure it makes things any clearer for what you folks decide to do,. . . first: no opinion on licensing, either is fine, no conflicts second: they recommend the project get some legal advice from SFLC we can effect an introduction all that aside, there are now questions as to where the server should be hosted, i.e if you want an ubuntu.com subdomain then elmo, James Troup has already said he would prefer it be in the Canonical data centre. . . I think he was going to work with bodhizazen on that issue already?? I believe so SFLC? dinda: Aye, that's an issue for bodhizazen and other sys-admins, kewl, then bodhizazen already knows all the issues involved in that cprofitt: Software Freedom Law Center cprofitt: The FSF spin off group Software Freedom Legal Counsel - i believe dinda, that would remove some of Bodhi's concerns if Canonical hosted it. * pleia2 nods cprofitt: yes but the trade offs are in responsiveness and sys-admin access Although what would he do with the investment he's already made? dinda, true... true dinda: thank you :) this gives us a lot to discuss he would likely just use the server for UBT items if Canonical hosted it. I wonder if I can further wine and dine jpds ;-) I appreciate the information dinda we will have to discuss it more... }}}