[OK, that was weird. Let's try again.]
Kees wrote:
>> I think it is a real problem. All list control is lost this way.
Katharine added:
> Amen to that.
I'll add my voice to the "Nabble-rousers" who think it's a bad idea. At
the very least, I'd suggest asking Nabble to "adjust" its preferences so
Nabble can't post. Better yet, we should remove the Nabble subscription
and ask Nabble to delete the list from its archive.
First, as Don pointed out, it makes it more difficult to police list
policy. Posting should be a privilege of list membership, not available to
any yahoo with a browser.
Second, contrary to what has been said by some, lists are not "public" in
the sense that posts are in the public domain. As a matter of copyright
law throughout most of the world, the copyright for each post is held by
its author. List members obviously are willing to share the content of
their posts with the other list members -- that is why we post. Frankly, I
do not support putting the archive in a generally-accessible form (i.e.,
available to non-members) on the web for this reason, but the general
consensus of the list seemed to be that it was OK, so the archive has been
generally available on the web. But that copy is still under the control
of the list owner, so any copyright concerns can be addressed if necessary
by taking them up with Gordon. Allowing Nabble to copy the list creates an
unauthorized copy of copyright works that is NOT under the control of the
list owner, which is unacceptable in my opinion.
Third, just because they did it without asking. As a matter of principle,
arrogance should be met with resistance.
Best regards,
etienne
Received on 06/28/06-07:28:11 PM Z
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : 07/28/06-08:55:14 AM Z CST