Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 04:52:48 +0200 From: Anthony Atkielski <atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Mailinglist privacy: MY NAME ALL OVER GOOGLE! Message-ID: <698260003.20050507045248@wanadoo.fr> In-Reply-To: <200505070336.01785.danny@ricin.com> References: <20050506103934.10FA34BEAD@ws1-1.us4.outblaze.com> <200505070226.37132.danny@ricin.com> <1075392968.20050507024224@wanadoo.fr> <200505070336.01785.danny@ricin.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Danny Pansters writes: > Yeah it's also remarkably about (perceived) profit and not about > personal expression (at all). Copyright has nothing to do with freedom > of expression although they're often linked (by the wrong parties > usually). Whatever the motivations behind it, it is still the law. I know that the geek community likes to affect a total disregard for the rule of law, but the rest of the world is fortunately not so inclined. > No not on general textual copyright and certainly not on casually > (re)produced text in a context where one can expect it to be reused > even being told it will be. Got one? Nothing comes immediately to mind. A domain without established precedents is always dangerous ground. > DMCA is more about patents than about copyrights anyway ... The DMCA has nothing to do with patents. Patents are distinct from copyrights. > Unless OP slaps a license on her postings it's all moot and considered > public domain. No, it is not; this is a very prevalent misconception. > Perhaps our mailing lists when you enter it or log on via the web > pages should have a public domain or BSD or else if named policy laid > out right there which applies to postings, especially when people sign > up. That way we can avoid this babble which comes up ever so often. It would be simple enough to require that subscribers agree to public archives or other conditions as a prerequisite to joining a list. > They'd choose the option that makes the most profit, you fool. The government does not stand to profit in these cases, whatever the decision taken. > What else? The public interest is a strong motivator, and the need to maintain order. > And I reckon they never be in disagreement because they can freely decide > which law to use? Broken system only beneficial to US/F authorities and > multinationals it seems. But hey if you're happy with that... very > democratic. I'm afraid I don't understand many of your comments. > Yeah about me legally marrying my male partner or not. Marriage is not relevant to the question under discussion. > Let's leave (court) politics alone, both you and I have a reasonable > idea about what is accepted in and what isn't. Not necessarily. As you have already implied, specific jurisprudence in this domain is lacking, although there are precedents in related situations. > I'm in Holland and France isn't that different (in many cases better). As far as I know, the FreeBSD organization is based in the U.S., so Holland and France are irrelevant. > You need relief not me, and hopefully it will stay that way. I didn't have anyone specific in mind. > Well, your awareness luckily isn't any measure. I am better informed than most in this domain. > So that's why you don't go into it I guess. Correct. > Oh no, I want it now rather than later. Later will be worse even if > with less merit. Will you, as you argue so strongly in favor? By all > means, do it. It's much better than the (admitted) uncertainty we're > in now over lots of legal subjects. I don't understand this, either. > The BSD way is clarity first, so we would benifit even if it would be > a short term regression. Let OP sue and pay for the procedures, that > would be nice. It's not nice when you're the party that has to pay damages. -- Anthony
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?698260003.20050507045248>