kjelderg at gmail.com
Mon Feb 7 03:06:16 PST 2005
After having read this thread (yes, every line of it...) I'm really
quite interested in it. Unfortunately, an analogy dropped off perhaps
below Señor Atkielski's radar so I thought I would recreate it and
hear his (and of course everyone else's) opinion(s) on it.
Let us make an analogue betwixt our Valerie and one who submits to the
local newspaper. There is a roughly equal level of consent given in
both cases, and the mailing list (newspaper company) is understood to
be able to reproduce this to all subscribers. Further, the mail
(newspaper) is archived in both cases by the mailing list authority
(newspaper company) and third parties (mirrors of mailing lists, other
mailing list archives, libraries, etc.) all of which are generally
available for viewing by the public.
So this request would be likened unto our Valerie writing to the
newspaper company and asking that any and all copies of the paper
which her submission was quoted in be burnt/destroyed/what have you.
The newspaper company certainly has legal right to destroy their
archived copies and may choose to do so, though I doubt the newspaper
agency is legally bound to do that.
Would this not be a reasonable analogy (if we throw out the fact that
the newspaper companies are generally capitalist entities since it has
little bearing here)? Certainly the newspaper didn't require a
contract to be signed by its submitters before distributing publicly
their submissions. I don't see that a mailing list would need such a
thing. The submissions are given under the understanding that they
shall be publicly available both to subscribers and non subscribers in
their favourite restaurants and libraries.
If I write a signature, my emails will appear more personalised.
More information about the freebsd-questions