Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 18 Jun 2006 21:54:35 -0400
From:      "David Hoffman" <zionicman@gmail.com>
To:        "Ingrid Kast Fuller" <ingrid@cityscope.net>
Cc:        Dennis Olvany <dennisolvany@gmail.com>, thisdayislong <thisdayislong@gmail.com>, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org, freebsd-user-groups@freebsd.org, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Fwd: Serious breach of copyright -- First post
Message-ID:  <e8b564e30606181854y54a20c8er8e91ded1976bca85@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <200606190137.k5J1bX0V015840@ns1.cityscope.net>
References:  <e8b564e30606181819i2024001cw34e96fddb0c63eef@mail.gmail.com> <200606190137.k5J1bX0V015840@ns1.cityscope.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
You're correct that the quote is incorrect; it's based on an older version
of the page.

However, most of what you wrote is incorrect.  Are you seriously trying to
tell us that the author's name is 'Brett Soupman'?  That seems like a
pseudonym at best. It's hardly clear he's given you permission to republish
the work, let alone to claim it as your own.  Moreover, due to the copyright
notice attributing the page to HOUFUG, exactly who owns the article is
ambiguous at best.  Sure, Brett owns it, but does HOUFUG own it as well?
This isn't at all clear.  Additionally, the page in question uses other
copyrighted works, including the logos of FreeBSD and Google, without
properly attributing them, unless HOUFUG is in some way officially partnered
with Google.

Finally, you haven't apologized for your egregious, illegal, and tortious
act of bad faith, that is, republishing the article without permission of
the owner and claiming it was owned by HOULUG.  According to archive.org's
Wayback Machine, the article has been posted in that extremely misleading
way for at least two years.  Doesn't the owner deserve a public apology and
a clarification posted on that page?  It seems to be the least you could
do.  I'm afraid you think you can get away with this because you think
soup's Francophile tendencies make him a target, as per your 'English only'
policy.

On 6/18/06, Ingrid Kast Fuller <ingrid@cityscope.net> wrote:
>
>  Your quote below is incorrect, we have been in contact with the owner of
> the article and he has approved the uploaded version which includes his name
> at the bottom."
> The HOUFUG website has a copyright of it's own for the design, images and
> other content.  We have referenced the owner of this article as approved by
> Brett Soupman.  At this point we are done with this copyright issue, it has
> been resolved ammicably with the owner.
>
> "....they have removed any reference to the true owner and have claimed it
> as their own."
>
>
> *Ingrid Kast Fuller
> **CityScope Net 713-477-6161
> 3910 Fairmont Parkway #264
> Pasadena, TX 77504-3076
> **http://www.cityscope.net* <http://www.cityscope.net/>;
>
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* David Hoffman [mailto:zionicman@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, June 18, 2006 8:20 PM
> *To:* Dennis Olvany
> *Cc:* freebsd-chat@freebsd.org; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org;
> freebsd-user-groups@freebsd.org; thisdayislong; ingrid@cityscope.net
>
> *Subject:* Re: Fwd: Serious breach of copyright -- First post
>
> On 6/18/06, Dennis Olvany <dennisolvany@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I had a look at http://www.houfug.org/help/install_freebsd.htm and I am
> > afraid that you will find this article is not eligible for copyright. It
> > constitutes neither an artistic nor literary work. The article conveys
> > only facts and facts are not eligible for copyright.
> >
>
>
> I'm afraid you're incorrect.  The work in question is indeed copyrightable
> under the Berne Convention, which many countries have ratified, including
> the United States, where the content is hosted.  The United States, as well
> as many other countries, also have national laws which allow this work to be
> copyrighted.
>
> It's also important to note that HouFUG clearly believes the work can be
> copyrighted, since they have included a copyright notice on the page.  This
> implies tremendous bad faith:  regardless of whether or not the article is
> copyrightable (it is), they have removed any reference to the true owner and
> have claimed it as their own.
>
> This is not acceptable behaviour.
>



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?e8b564e30606181854y54a20c8er8e91ded1976bca85>