On Saturday 05 September 2009, Raj Mathur wrote: > On Saturday 05 Sep 2009, Vickram Crishna wrote: > > [snip] > > On licensing: in theory, cc licenses enable the licensor to empower > > all readers to reuse the content under certain circumstances, spelled > > out in the license, and mostly relating for all intents and purposes, > > to attribution. As against this, a 'public' email carries no such > > clarification, and assuming that one (as a recipient) is free to > > repeat, or in any other manner, reuse the contents with or without > > attribution is not borne out by history, ie reality check. > > 'Fair use' is a matter that continues to pose problems for legal > > systems around the world, and I doubt the legal experts on this list > > have the authority to pronounce judgment on those who choose to > > encumber their posts with such lengthy signatures. > > However, that licence does carry specific penalties with it. The person > in question licenses his/her posts as: by-nc, which means that the mail > cannot be used in a commercial work. This causes issues -- for example, > someone in an Internet-less part of India asks me for a copy of the list > archives on CD. I make the CD and send it to him, charging him Rs 25 > for the media and transfer costs. By doing this I'm violating the > licence of the mail and am technically liable to be prosecuted for > copyright violation. Effectively, the licence prevents anyone from ever > using or quoting the mail in a context where money is involved, the > alternative being to seek out and destroy all the OP's mails before > doing anything useful with the archives. > > This, to me, is unacceptable and anti-social behaviour. I hope the OP > stops the process of licensing individual mails.
We should have a default "public domain" policy for the list. Dont post in public if you dont want others to hear and repeat. -- Rgds JTD _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
