From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 8 14:51:12 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E462816A4CE for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2005 14:51:12 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ei.bzerk.org (ei.xs4all.nl [213.84.67.5]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDDA843D1F for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2005 14:51:09 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mail25@bzerk.org) Received: from ei.bzerk.org (BOFH@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ei.bzerk.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j18EtPWe077488 for ; Tue, 8 Feb 2005 15:55:25 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from mail25@bzerk.org) Received: (from bulk@localhost) by ei.bzerk.org (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id j18EtPj2077487 for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Tue, 8 Feb 2005 15:55:25 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from mail25@bzerk.org) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 15:55:25 +0100 From: Ruben de Groot To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20050208145525.GA76723@ei.bzerk.org> Mail-Followup-To: Ruben de Groot , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: <200502061420.24415.krinklyfig@spymac.com> <849739867.20050207170757@wanadoo.fr> <20050207161015.GH21722@thingy.apana.org.au> <399973539.20050207171622@wanadoo.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <399973539.20050207171622@wanadoo.fr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED, FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS autolearn=failed version=3.0.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.1 (2004-10-22) on ei.bzerk.org Subject: Re: favor X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 14:51:13 -0000 On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 05:16:22PM +0100, Anthony Atkielski typed: > > DG> So it helps the copyright situation, but breaks the usefulness of > DG> any archive. > > The copyright situation is an unavoidable legal mandate, not an option. > You cannot defend against an infringement action by saying that > respecting copyright would have been inconvenient for you. Can we please stop the legal mumbo-jumbo? This is supposed to be a technical mailing list. And a global one at that. Copyright laws in the US or any other country are irrelevant at best, a nuisance at the worse. But certainly not worth waisting this much bandwidth on. Ruben