🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4l111p$neg@peabody.colorado.edu>,
Robert Tarrall <tarrall@plutus.Colorado.EDU> wrote:
>
>The usage policy as far as I can tell really isn't anything new, nor is
>it as restrictive in practise as you suggest.

I think the wording and semantics of the whole article leave
a lot of room for difference of interpretation.  I agree it's
not as restrictive as I may have made it sound,  but it could
be easily interpreted that way.
	This is where I am concerned because if a user can
misinterpret the Policy...then somewhere down the line,
someone at UMS (UMS - not CNS - drafted the new policy)
could use the fact that the Policy leaves room for
interpretation to their advantage.
	You also have to keep in mind that this is
not commonplace among Universities.  We're not
"joining the bandwagon".  In comparison to most
major Universities,  I think this Policy *is* rather restrictive.

>Since the University system is partially funded by
>taxpayer dollars it would be improper for you as a CU affiliate to use your
>account as a discount source of advertising.
>

It is improper according to the Policy.  It's quite natural
and commonplace for the Internet.
	Let's also keep in mind that the Policy was not drafted
by the taxpayers or the students, who provide the bulk of
University funding.

>
>I do not work for CNS and the above should be taken as a "personal" (grin)
>opinion and not as University policy.
>
	I do work for CNS...but I'm only speaking for myself.

I think UMS needs to stay away from legal wording and
create a *CLEAR* and *SIMPLE* Policy.  The problem is not
that we have a Policy...the problem is that we have a Policy
which, in my opinion of course, is nothing but a lot of
Legal babble and ultimately leaves too much room for someone
to misinterpret or abuse it.

Joe