From: Scott Morris (smorris@ipexpert.com)
Date: Fri Jun 08 2007 - 09:43:21 ART
Oh, absolutely. IMHO, it's still good information no matter where you get
it from. And I think Narbik pointed out that neither one charges for it.
I've been tempted to put the information on Ipexpert's web site as well, but
I can't figure out whether to copy it from NLI or from IE.
;)
-----Original Message-----
From: jslauer@hotmail.com [mailto:jslauer@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 8:29 AM
To: Scott Morris; 'Darby Weaver'; 'Narbik Kocharians'
Cc: 'Brian Dennis'; 'Victor Cappuccio'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: 3550/3560 feature comparison [mx]
Personally I would give the dude the benefit of the doubt,
he works for the company so he found a cool link on the website and posted
it. I doubt he considered where it came from. It seems that he's bearing the
brunt of it here. The two documents do look an awful lot alike, however
what's to say (as Narbik Mentioned before) that this wasn't just scooped up
in a mad dash for information? But hey! Good news is here! It's friday!
JL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Morris" <smorris@ipexpert.com>
To: "'Darby Weaver'" <darbyweaver@yahoo.com>; "'Narbik Kocharians'"
<narbikk@gmail.com>
Cc: "'Brian Dennis'" <bdennis@internetworkexpert.com>; "'Victor Cappuccio'"
<victor@ccbootcamp.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 8:06 AM
Subject: RE: 3550/3560 feature comparison [mx]
>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
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > >
>> >
>>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>> > > >> > Subscription information may be found at:
>> > > >> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > >
>> >
>>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>> > > >> > Subscription information may be found at:
>> > > >> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>> > > Subscription information may be found at:
>> > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>> >
>> >
>>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>> > Subscription information may be found at:
>> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Narbik Kocharians
>> CCIE# 12410 (R&S, SP, Security)
>> CCSI# 30832
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>> Subscription information may be found at:
>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Jul 01 2007 - 17:24:47 ART