On Wed, Aug 11, 1999 at 07:13:05AM -0800, Tim Bowden wrote:
> Just an attempt at looking at the other side before the onslaught
> of Privacy Proctors; let me say that I would not operate eGroup
> or any like service without a similar clause. If you have hundreds
> coming through your doors, you will have the dissatisfied, you will
> even have the unstable, and a standard Twit-Off Turn calls for the
> disabused dud to demand under legal threat all her/is treasures be
> removed on those premises.
It's possible for eGroup to protect their ability to legally propagate and
archive the list without demanding a license to distribute its contents in any
medium they choose from now until the sun cools to a cinder.
In my eyes the appropriate license for a site like eGroup would be one that
tightly encircles the functions that are necessary for their site to function
normally:
1) They have a right to redistribute messages submitted to the list via
email to whoever is subscribed to the list at the time
2) They have a right to create and maintain a publicly-viewable archive
of the list until the list owner asks them to take it down
3) They have a right to stick their ads on the outgoing messages or the
archive
4) They require the list owner to make these terms known to the list
subscribers with the understanding that if the subscribers do not agree
to the terms they should not subscribe to the list
I would also allow subscribers to tag their messages in a way that prevented
them from being added to the archives...
--
Lazlo Nibble - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.studio-nibble.com
--
