SUO: MOTION
Pat Hayes wrote:
>
> I imagine that its prime purpose was to render harmless
> to Cycorp the SUO and all similar efforts, insofar as
> they might be seen as in any way competitive. Notice
> that the agreement requires that any use of any axioms
> which are *logically equivalent* to any part of Cyc,
> even if translated into any other natural or artificial
> language, must be credited to Cycorp. This means that
> if one uses any part of the Cyc upper ontology and if
> they also assert that, say, every relation is a thing,
> or that spatial containment is transitive, then they
> must acknowledge that Cycorp owns the copyright to
> that assertion, even if it is made in, say, EPISTLE,
> or even in English, and even if they had said it before
> in other places; in fact, even if Aristotle had said
> it before. The hubris of claiming ownership of all
> statements which are logically equivalent to a fair
> amount of human common sense is quite astonishing.
>
> Pat Hayes
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
The last time I checked it,
all axioms, and all truths,
are "logically equivalent".
I, for one, have no interest in working under this sort of condition.
If the interpretation of Pat Hayes is true, then all I offer is this:
MOTION, in order to dissociate the IEEE SUO Working Group from
any and all encumbrances and entanglements with Cycorp's rider,
that all of those who do choose to work under this rider form
a separate entity, after the manner of "Cyc User's Group", or
some other formulation of their own devising, and cease acting
to divert the other participants of the IEEE SUO Working Group
into taking up this unwanted onus.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤