Hi Joe, I think for now, all of the mastheads have been removed from all USGENWEB sites hosted by rootsweb. That's not to say they won't be back very soon, but for now, they are all gone. Hopefully our National Coordinator will be able to negotiate something that will be acceptable to the ones that have sites hosted by rootsweb. If not, then we will all have to make our individual decisions to move or not. For me, I don't have a problem with some kind of uniform blurb on our sites acknowledging rootsweb for our hosting. The problem I have is a link to ancestry.cm on my site. IMO that makes it look like we are nothing but a bunch of sites offered through them. It's no secret that ancestry's goal is to be the only genealogy site on the web. To me this is another way to control another chunk of pie, so to speak. But, one thing I've learned since I've been here. You ask 10 people, you get 10 different opinions. You have very strong ancestry and rootsweb supporters that see nothing wrong with it and say it is a bunch ado about nothing. There is also the possibility that if the National Page does move and roootsweb and ancestry can no longer claim to host the Project, they may look at all of the sites differently. Just thinking out loud Sandy McDuffie CC ---- Joe <jborderman@cox.net> wrote: > The problem that has USGENWeb upset at this time appears to be the fact > that rootsweb added > a logo to the USGENWeb site. Also if you go to rootsweb now there also > is an Ancestry logo > on the main page. People are concerned that they might do this to all > pages on rootsweb that > are state or county sites too. To complicate the issue is the fact that > USGENWeb appears to > really wanting to move the main site page off rootsweb. This could > upset the apple cart and > possibly cause rootsweb to shut down all our sites (Could this be a move > by Ancestry to > cripple the whole project????). I offered my input because there was so > much discussion > going on that was off-base with the main topic. I don't particularly > want to move to something > else either. I mainly posted the comment because I think we may need to > discuss this item > amongst GAGENWeb and get a consensus of the CC's and maybe appoint one > or two > people to speak for the state. What do you all think???? > > Joe Borderieux > Peach County Coordinator > > Virginia Crilley wrote: > > Brenda, you stated this so well! > > > > I've yet to see any real (in contrast to alleged) abuse by Ancestry. > > > > They removed what had outraged many from USGenWeb -- so I'd like to give > > them the benefit of the doubt. It could be their intent was to be helpful > > to all researchers -- but it came out differently. But the important thing > > is that they listened and made changes. > > > > Considering all their dependability, their free mailing lists, free > > USGenWeb pages, free personal Genealogy pages that they have provided over > > the years, I feel their "plus" elements far outweigh the few times they > > have appeared to encroach on our materials. I've never known them to "ask > > us" for contributions so we can continue to have our pages on their server. > > > > We in USGenWeb certainly have as our main goal to provide FREE research, > > and that is what I plan to continue to do by working with all the > > volunteers who submit information for our sites. > > > > I want to keep my pages with Rootsweb/Ancestry. > > > > At 08:09 PM 9/14/2007 -0400, you wrote: > > > >> I just wanted to step in (for what may be my only venture into this > >> discussion) and respond to some of Joe B's comments and ideas, as well > >> as bring up some of my own. > >> > >> Rootsweb's initial mission was exactly the same as the USGenWeb > >> project- to keep internet genealogy free (and legal). This was prior > >> to their being bought out in 2000, so obviously the rules have changed > >> (and I'm sure MyFamily changed a lot of the wording once they got a > >> hold of things). MyFamily.com has become a sort of a "Ma Bell" of the > >> online genealogy community, and so it does warrant a close look at > >> things to see if it might be time for us to cut our ties. If I'm not > >> mistaken, all or nearly all of the county/state sites were up and > >> active *before* the sellout/buyout of Rootsweb in 2000. Since they > >> have been passed down from coordinator to coordinator, it has just > >> been easier to refresh and maintain existing sites rather than remove > >> them entirely and set them up on other hosting services. But there are > >> some who have done this, so it's not impossible- but for the rest of > >> us it would be a large undertaking on a grand scale. If we did this, > >> would it be best to do it in phases? What problems might we encounter? > >> Should we all jump ship to one single provider (like Google), or might > >> it be better to scale down and offer a handful of possible providers > >> (preferably non-genealogy related)? Would there be any chance of the > >> same things occurring over again as far as user-submitted data and it > >> being exploited for someone else's monetary gain? > >> > >> Wasn't there a similar issue with user-submitted family tree data and > >> Ancestry initially charging for that (and then changing their policies > >> to make it into a free-access family tree database)? Since the GenWeb > >> project is, after all, essentially 100% user-submitted data (and > >> design), do they have a right to create any kind of free access/search > >> engine results to provide access to that data for anyone using their > >> site? They probably do, and if that bothers us, we need to do > >> something about it. > >> > >> If Rootsweb wants their logo on USGenWeb pages, it makes perfect sense > >> that Ancestry will follow too (notice the Ancestry logo side-by-side > >> with the Rootsweb logo at the top of Rootsweb pages already). Do we > >> want to open ourselves up to that possibility? I'm not a big fan of > >> that idea. Is Rootsweb expecting every free page they host > >> (non-USGenWeb related) to incorporate their logo in a masthead? > >> Probably not. Why? Maybe because *we* are such a huge force in online > >> genealogy (at least I believe we are) that they want a piece of us. > >> > >> Something that should be looked at is Rootsweb's "Acceptable Use > >> Policy" which can be found here: > >> http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/aup.html > >> > >> Here are some choice segments from the Ters and Conditions that made > >> me raise my eyebrows- wondering if it is really "safe" to continue > >> with their service: > >> > >> "...Your use of the Service indicates that you are bound by this > >> agreement with us. If you don't agree with any of these terms and > >> conditions, don't use the Service. We may alter this agreement at our > >> discretion and your continued use after any change indicates your > >> acceptance of that change. If you don't want to be bound by a change, > >> discontinue use of the Service. > >> > >> ...Limited Use LICENSE > >> You are licensed to use the Content only for personal or professional > >> family history research, and may download Content only as search > >> results relevant to that research. The download of the whole or > >> significant portions of any work or database is prohibited. Resale of > >> a work or database or portion thereof, except as specific results > >> relevant to specific research for an individual, is prohibited. On > >> line or other republication of Content is prohibited except as unique > >> data elements that are part of a unique family history or genealogy. > >> Violation of this License may result in immediate termination of your > >> membership and may result in legal action for injunction, damages or > >> both. ... [Are they bound by this agreement as well??] > >> > >> ...User-Provided Content > >> Portions of the Service will contain user-provided content, to which > >> you may contribute appropriate content (the "Submitted Content") For > >> this Content, the submitter is the owner, and RootsWeb.com is only a > >> distributor. By submitting Submitted Content to RootsWeb.com, you > >> grant MyFamily.com, Inc., the corporate host of the Service, a limited > >> license to the Submitted Content to use, host, and distribute that > >> Submitted Content and allow hosting and distribution on co-branded > >> Services of that Submitted Content. You should submit only content > >> which belongs to you and will not violate the property or other rights > >> of other people or organizations. MyFamily.com, Inc. is sensitive to > >> copyright and other intellectual property rights of others. For more > >> information concerning copyright issues, view our corporate policy. > >> Content submitted for the purpose of commercial use, advertising or > >> fee for service is prohibited. ... > >> > >> ...Because some states/jurisdictions do not allow the exclusion or > >> limitation of liability for consequential or incidental damages, this > >> limitation may not apply in part to you. IF YOU ARE DISSATISFIED WITH > >> ANY PORTION OF THIS WEB SERVICE, OR WITH ANY OF THESE TERMS OF USE, > >> YOUR SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY IS TO DISCONTINUE USING THIS WEB > >> SERVICE...." > >> > >> > >> I did not alter any of that- just copied and pasted it here. The note > >> in brackets is mine. > >> > >> I currently have my own Google Pages that I use for family genealogy, > >> and have been using Google's Page Creator to put it together. I don't > >> know how that page creator will work for others- so just uploading the > >> pages as-is might be best. But I would have a concern about how to > >> establish all of the county/state/archives pages we would need to have > >> without working out an arrangement with Google. If the usernames and > >> passwords will be passed down to future coordinators, then a specific > >> agreement might need to be worked out in order to do that. I think > >> that might cut into a "misrepresentation/impersonation" conflict if > >> the registration info no longer applies to a new coordinator (how > >> could we create pages not tied to a person's name in any way?). > >> > >> > >> I apologize for the length of this, but wanted to sort out my thoughts > >> and see what others felt about all this. This is a potentially huge > >> shift for the Projects, but maybe it will turn out to be a worthwhile > >> undertaking. I come at this from the perspective of a long-time > >> USGenWeb user as well as an Ancestry.com subscriber. USGenWeb is more > >> personal than Ancestry and will only increase in value as time goes on > >> (especially as the Census Project continues). I dream of the day when > >> I won't need to subscribe to Ancestry.com, because all of the info > >> they charge for will finally end up on the web for free (at USGenWeb > >> and at other archival sources -like Universities- who don't/can't > >> charge for their data). As we grow stronger, Ancestry might grow > >> weaker, because if they can't legally monopolize documents and data > >> then it is only a matter of time before someone else (like a > >> volunteer) gets to it and provides access to the information for free. > >> > >> Thank you for your time on this, and for everyone coming out to voice > >> their concerns and ideas. > >> > >> > >> Belinda Slocumb > >> Stewart and Webster CC, GAGenWeb > >> > >> ------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > >> GAGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > >> in the subject and the body of the message > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GAGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GAGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message