From: Scott Morris (smorris@ipexpert.com)
Date: Fri Jun 08 2007 - 09:06:23 ART
I don't think the term you are looking for is "copyright" because as you
state it's publically-available information. But when the content matches
TOO closely, it's called "plagiarism", and it's just an ethically shaky
thing. Copyright violation implies illegality though!
The question should be is this the way that Cisco passes the information
along, and the answer is "sort of". When you use Feature Navigator, it does
give you a list of "common" and "unique" features. But little commentary
like "unsupported" or "undocumented" or things like that are not supplied by
Cisco. So that would be the more questionable area of duplication.
*shrug*
Scott Morris, CCIE4 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service Provider) #4713, JNCIE
#153, CISSP, et al.
CCSI/JNCI-M/JNCI-J
VP - Technical Training - IPexpert, Inc.
IPexpert Sr. Technical Instructor
A Cisco Learning Partner - We Accept Learning Credits!
smorris@ipexpert.com
Telephone: +1.810.326.1444
Fax: +1.810.454.0130
http://www.ipexpert.com
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Darby Weaver
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 4:25 AM
To: Narbik Kocharians
Cc: Brian Dennis; Victor Cappuccio; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: 3550/3560 feature comparison [mx]
Funny - I just left a forum and one of the issues was about links like
these. Albeit, it is the vantage and right of the owner of the forum to
allow/disallow whatever he/she might feel comfortable with - since it is
ultimately his/her property in question. No argument there.
So are links themselves legal or illegal? Do they violate copyright to
reference them on another site?
Or if content is copied and with reference to the author and/or the url
where it was found?
The links used in these examples point to Cisco. I have seen links used a
lot and mostly everywhere - if the information in the link is cited is it
copyright infringement? Hmmm... I would think not, but perhaps I am wrong
and what others think is more correct. I know people have a cow over
pictures and such.
Now in this example we have some references to Cisco's content provided by
two companies who both sell training services so support Cisco's product, to
wit, the IOS.
However, the dispute is about the actual words used to reference Cisco's
links on it's own site. Since they appear to be identical.
Then we have the idea behind it all, where they are mere references with
brief descriptions of their content and the spirit of the information from
both parties in question is simply to provide a service (information or
references), free at that to one's customers - some of whom are the same (I
am a customer of both vendors as an example and judging by the CCIE numbers
both vendors claim - I am not alone).
Ok - Sleep calls and this is really not my concern - unless it ends up
putting one of my favorite vendors out of business, or if it causes them to
miss product development deadlines...
Was curious about how the vendors might feel about other posting links to
content on their site and about using examples from their respective site as
long as it is cited as to where it came from and the author was given credit
if known.
Any comments on the last paragraph? Preferably by the vendors in question
or other vendors.
--- Narbik Kocharians <narbikk@gmail.com> wrote:
> Girls,
>
>
>
> I am not sure who is right and who is wrong, but I have one question
> from all of you guys, is it possible that the person that made NLI's
> website and/or Internetwork expert's website innocently just did a
> search and copied the page in order to provide a service to the
> students?
>
> I want all of you to understand that neither Internetwork Expert nor
> NLI are charging the students for that information.
>
> I see both Brian and Victor's point in this matter, and I believe its
> nothing but a simple innocent mistake, since the information is
> neither NLI's nor Internetwork expert's intellectual property, it's a
> simple summary of what is freely available on Cisco's website, so
> basically what we are talking about is the actual format of the
> documentation, which I believe it sucks any way (just a joke). It's
> not like these guys copied each others work books.
>
> I am sure once both parties talk to the webmaster of their company,
> they will find out as to what happened and the problem will be
> corrected (Reformat the freaking document).
>
>
> On 6/7/07, Darby Weaver <darbyweaver@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Everyone,
> >
> > Victor only asked why it could not be the other
> way
> > around. A reasonable question.
> >
> > He has not been at NLI for 6 months just yet as I recall. Maybe,
> > what, 4 months as I seem to
> recall.
> >
> > Just because he asked the question does not make
> him
> > personall unethical. Let's reserve that statement
> for
> > the party who actually copied the other company's
> work
> > and posted it as their own.
> >
> > I know Victor on a more personal level, and I for
> one,
> > do not believe he lacks ethics.
> >
> > Victor has worked hard to get where he is and just because he posted
> > a link from his company here on
> GS,
> > that looks to be exactly the same as the one of a competitor does
> > not make him unethical.
> >
> > Now, I would wonder when he site posted their page since it seems to
> > be an "interesting battle of
> ethics"
> > between two companies.
> >
> > Someone obviously took the time to research the
> issue
> > and to figure out which features applied to which version of IOS.
> >
> > So who is right and who is wrong?
> >
> > Brian Dennis asserts very strongly that he created this work
> > orginally and even has a link to it as
> early
> > as the date listed/marked on Groupstudy at
> minimum.
> > This may very well be the truth.
> >
> > Now the question would be how long the link has
> been
> > up at NLI (to be fair).
> >
> > I am sure Brad Ellis and his team are looking into this one by now.
> >
> > ------------
> >
> > But let's not attack an employ of the company who
> has
> > not been proven to be personally liable (unless
> the
> > company he his working for is willing to put his
> neck
> > on the line as well - since this is serious and
> could
> > be career-affecting).
> >
> > So now the question is:
> >
> > When did NLI post their that information on their site?
> >
> > Now if they should be able to produce proof that
> their
> > site had it first... are we going to hear an
> apology?
> > Or if they don't - again will we here an apology?
> >
> > While someone obviously had to submit the
> information
> > for posting on NLI's site, and it may have even
> been
> > Victor, at the moment none of us, know this to be
> true
> > at this time.
> >
> > Let's give Victor a small reprieve - he is getting ready for a CCIE
> > Lab at the moment and I am sure
> he
> > personally has better uses for his own mental energies.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- Brian Dennis <bdennis@internetworkexpert.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Victor,
> > > So your company9s website ends up with a
> document
> > > that I wrote over 6 months
> > > ago (see below) and then you have the audacity
> to
> > > publicly accuse me of
> > > stealing it from you? I9ve seen some pretty
> poor
> > > ethics on this list over
> > > the years but I wouldn9t have expected it from
> you
> > > personally.
> > >
> > >
> >
>
http://www.groupstudy.com/archives/ccielab/200611/msg00970.html
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Brian Dennis, CCIE4 #2210
> (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/SP)
> > > bdennis@internetworkexpert.com
> > >
> > > Internetwork Expert, Inc.
> > > http://www.InternetworkExpert.com
> > > Toll Free: 877-224-8987
> > > Direct: 775-745-6404 (Outside the US and Canada)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 6/7/07 5:37 PM, "Victor Cappuccio"
> > > <victor@ccbootcamp.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Brian,
> > > >
> > > > No, I ( WE ) did NOT copy the web page into
> "the
> > > company web server", Why
> > > It
> > > > could not be as the other way around?
> > > >
> > > > I am not the web master of my company web
> server,
> > > So I would advice you to
> > > > address your concerns to
> support@ccbootcamp.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > thanks,
> > > > Victor Cappuccio.-
> > > > - CCSI# 31452
> > > >
> > > > Network Learning Inc - A Cisco Sponsored
> > > Organization (SO) YES! We take
> > > > Cisco Learning credits!
> > > > victor@ccbootcamp.com
> > > > http://www.ccbootcamp.com (Cisco Training and
> > > Rental Racks)
> > > > http://www.ccbootcamp.com/groupstudy.html
> > > (groupstudy member discounts!)
> > > > Voice: 702-968-5100
> > > > FAX: 702-446-8012
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Brian Dennis
> > > [mailto:bdennis@internetworkexpert.com]
> > > > Sent: Thu 6/7/2007 8:15
> > > > To: Victor Cappuccio;
> thomas.rader@freesurf.ch;
> > > ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > > Subject: Re: 3550/3560 feature comparison [mx]
> > > >
> > > > Victor,
> > > > So you just copied the page that I wrote
> > > months ago and put it up on
> > > > your site?
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://www.internetworkexpert.com/resources/ccie-3560-3550.htm
> > > >
> > >
> http://www.ccbootcamp.com/tech-notes/3550vs3560.html
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Brian Dennis, CCIE4 #2210
> > > (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/SP)
> > > > bdennis@internetworkexpert.com
> > > >
> > > > Internetwork Expert, Inc.
> > > > http://www.InternetworkExpert.com
> > > > Toll Free: 877-224-8987
> > > > Direct: 775-745-6404 (Outside the US and
> Canada)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 6/7/07 12:39 AM, "Victor Cappuccio"
> > > <victor@ccbootcamp.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> > This link may help you
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > >
> http://www.ccbootcamp.com/tech-notes/3550vs3560.html
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > thanks,
> > > >> > Victor Cappuccio.-
> > > >> > - CCSI# 31452
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Network Learning Inc - A Cisco Sponsored
> > > Organization (SO) YES! We take
> > > >> > Cisco Learning credits!
> > > >> > victor@ccbootcamp.com
> > > >> > http://www.ccbootcamp.com (Cisco Training
> and
> > > Rental Racks)
> > > >> > http://www.ccbootcamp.com/groupstudy.html
> > > (groupstudy member discounts!)
> > > >> > Voice: 702-968-5100
> > > >> > FAX: 702-446-8012
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > -----Original Message-----
> > > >> > From: nobody@groupstudy.com on behalf of
> > > thomas.rader@freesurf.ch
> > > >> > Sent: Thu 6/7/2007 0:01
> > > >> > To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > >> > Subject: 3550/3560 feature comparison
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Hello,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Does anyone have a list of the differences
> in
> > > the features between the
> > > 3550
> > > &
> > > >> > 3560 switches?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > ie, PVLAN support, etc.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I've only got 3550's in my ccie rack, and
> am
> > > trying to do a "gap
> > > analysis"
> > > >> to
> > > >> > see what I need to be aware of.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Thanks, Thomas
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > >
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Jul 01 2007 - 17:24:47 ART