begin  quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] as of Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 09:59:26AM -0800:
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 04:02:32PM -0800, Stewart Stremler wrote:
> > > I'm a big fan of proper attribution.  I'm not sure we need a law for it.

You deleted a level of attribution inappropriately. Again.

Here's the original:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Wed Nov 22 16:02:58 2006
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Original-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[chop]
X-Original-To: [email protected]
Delivered-To: [email protected]
[chop]
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 16:02:32 -0800
From: Stewart Stremler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Main Discussion List for KPLUG <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
        <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
        <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
        <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
        <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
        <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
        <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
        <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
        <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
        <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[chop]
Subject: Re: Starting to think abolishing copyright may be way to go...
[chop]
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Status: RO
Content-Length: 856
Lines: 28

begin  quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] as of Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 03:44:33PM -0800:
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 02:28:55PM -0800, Stewart Stremler wrote:
> > For works in the public domain, attribution is not required. You can
> > write a story about Robin Hood, or lift a plot from Shakespeare, and you
> > don't have to give any sort of attribution or acknowledgement.
> 
> I'm a big fan of proper attribution.  I'm not sure we need a law for it.
 
Aren't you a recent convert? 

Or was it someone else who was deleting attribution lines, and I've
done you the mis-service of thinking it was you?

If so, I apologize.

> I'm also a big fan of honesty but I don't know that we should have an
> anti-lying law.

We have all sorts of anti-lying laws.

-- 
_ |\_
 \|


-- 
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You don't _act_ like a fan of proper attribution.

> > > I'm also a big fan of honesty but I don't know that we should have an
> > > anti-lying law.
> >
> > We have all sorts of anti-lying laws.
> 
> Yes but the point is do we need a law for *everything* we find disagreeable?

Did I say that?

No.

I pointed out that we *already* *have* anti-lying laws. I'm not going
to be your straw man, no matter how much you try to make me into a
scarecrow.

> What is your criteria for when to make a law and when to not?

When to make a law: when it makes sense to do so.
When not to make a law: when it doesn't make sense, and/or we have one already.

-- 
_ |\_
 \|


-- 
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list

Reply via email to