On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 09:12 +1100, Troy Rollo wrote: > Implying consent for a person to quote a message in reply > (such as in the quote above, for example), or for the list owner to keep an > archive, is likely to be easier than implying consent for third party > archiving.
gmane archives on request of the list owner, which, while not explicit consent on the part of the originator, is at least a relationship with the mailing list and that list owner can indicate who (if anyone) is archiving the list with their consent. Given how long public mailing lists have been around, and given how long public web archives of them have been available, it'd be rather hard to construct an argument that someone _posting_ to a public list should have an expectation that no one would be able to see their content. But publishing a recooked archive of someone else's list (as opposed to archiving your own list or asking gmane to do it on your behalf) without their consent is pushing it. If nothing else, it is redistribution, and in open source land we tend to care about getting the semantics of that right. AfC Sydney
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
