On Tue, January 13, 2009 4:34 pm, jtd said: > On Tuesday 13 January 2009 15:57, Atanu Datta wrote: >> On Tue, January 13, 2009 3:23 pm, jtd said: >> > On Monday 12 January 2009 23:46, Atanu Datta wrote: >> >> On Mon, January 12, 2009 11:20 pm, Rony said: >> >> > Philip Tellis wrote: >> >> >>>> why license at all? >> >> >> >> >> >> IIRC, all mails to this list are in the Public Domain. I >> >> >> believe that was always the intent - at least as far back as >> >> >> I can remember. Perhaps we should make this explicit in the >> >> >> guidelines so that people who don't like that can refrain >> >> >> from mailing the list. >> >> > >> >> > Just want to mention my experience with messages on this list. >> >> > I had written a mail about an issue of LFY and it included a >> >> > balanced view. In the next month's issue I find my message on >> >> > this list being printed in the letters section and they neatly >> >> > assembled only those lines that were positive about LFY. All >> >> > this without my knowledge of the same. >> >> >> >> Regret that permission was not taken from you in addition to you >> >> not being notified about it. If you could direct me to the mail >> >> (from the mailing list archives) and the issue of LFY where it >> >> was published, it'd help me review that matter. >> > >> > Dont tell me your editors dont know anything about attributions >> > and copyright. If they quote partly, especially without >> > permission they should point out the source. >> >> Quoting someone automatically becomes an attribution, > > What do you mean "automatically"?. You mean the article has comments > scrapped from the web without human intervention.
Yes, exactly. So, you see online articles from The Register, Inquirer, news.com, Znet, etc., that frequently quote statements made in the public by a such an such person published in some other media. That's attribution. >> otherwise >> it's not a quote at all. So, when you quote someone in a >> story/article for something those words which form an option is >> attributed to the person who said it. Quoting someone also needs a >> journalist to ask for permission. However, if it's already >> published somewhere, you can simply point to the source, which is >> what happened in this case. > > Afaik there was no reference to the source. > (http://ilug-bom...whatever) at best there was afair a reference to > Rony Bill in the Mumbal lug (as you probably correctly point out), > implying that he said that the product was very good, whereas in fact > he was saying exactly the opposite, which you make no metion of. So, I ask again: Can I be pointed at the mail so that I can analyse the matter? Or is it asking too much? If there's any issue, I am ready to own up in public here. Savvy? >> If you think we've done >> something that doesn't fall under proper journalistic practices, >> you can go ask anyone from NYT, Guardian, or any other media >> company that you think abides to a proper journalistic procedure. >> > > I do read those and i dare say you guys have a loooooong way to go on > all counts. Well at least you aim high. But long before you achieve > those standards you need to have the guts to print the comments that > show what readers think about you. lol!! We're not trying to be an NYT or a Guardian. So, you got our aim totally wrong. Aim is to provide a medium to Indians or otherwise who'd want to share some info with the readers. The deal is simple: authors get paid (if they think the payment is not substantial, they can chose not to write also, we're not forcing anyone) and we compile and publish a mag and try and earn some profits that pays the staff's salaries. Besides, the articles are licensed under CC-by-SA (unlike most other media companies, who sit on the material thinking it's *their* IP), so that those who are willing can extend/update the info published. > Quoting half of somenone's statement to imply exactly the opposite of > what he said is dishonesty my dear fellow. The question of attribs > and copyright stem from the fact that your eds did something, that to > us smacks of dishonesty. Again, I need to analyse the source. Can I be provided the info that I asked for in the first mail? > anyway lets see if this one also is so much water on a ducks back. Whatever you mean by this statement... Best, Atanu -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
