free sco unix
freebsd at edvax.de
Fri Jun 17 04:14:05 UTC 2011
On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 21:35:54 -0600, Chad Perrin wrote:
> I've noticed that your mail user agent is including quoted parties' email
> addresses in the quote notification. In the text immediately following
> this brief paragraph, for instance, my email address was included after
> my name. I would appreciate it if you would configure your mail user
> agent to no longer do this, for not only my sake but that of others who
> would probably like to see archives that strip such information from
> headers before publicly posting them actually do some good. When the
> email address also appears in the text of the email because your mail
> user agent is adding it in, you are creating a crop of victims for spam
> email list spiders to reap.
Thanks for the advice, I've just made the setting (I'm using
the Sylpheed MUA). I didn't pay much attention to that (although
I'm aware of the topic) as mailing list publishing systems
put in the "From:" datafield (directed at the list) automatically,
so all the names and addresses are already in there.
I will keep that setting as it sounds the right thing to do.
Other possibly needed information (like addresses) are in
the mail header anyway.
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 05:38:42AM +0200, Polytropon wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 21:03:16 -0600, Chad Perrin wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 02:50:40AM +0200, Polytropon wrote:
> > > > Software publishing and licensing terms are very different,
> > > > considering today's software. On one hand, there is code without
> > > > mentioning of author, copyright or ownership. Then there is the
> > > > "rape me" BSD-style licenses, the "contribute back" GPL licenses,
> > > > and proprietary EULAs that traditionally do not take code into
> > > > mind, but restrict the users in what they are allowed to do with
> > > > programs.
> > >
> > > I find this a particularly biased description. Would you like to rethink
> > > the phrasing "rape me" as a description of copyfree licensing terms as
> > > embodied in a BSD License?
> > It's not _my_ interpretation of the license. The term originates from
> > the repeated discussion of "the BSD license being not free" with the
> > counterposition that the BSD license is even _so_ free that it allows
> > the "post-usage" of the material - i. e. take it for free, change it,
> > give it another name, sell it for money. If a developer is FINE with
> > this kind of "post-usage", he can use the BSD license.
> > Luckily, developers can choose from many licenses, or write their own
> > ones, so everyone will be satisfied according to his individual
> > requirements.
> Unlike choices in software (a matter purely of preference), I find too
> many choices of licensing problematic. Just one reason among several for
> my perspective is that of hindering further advancement of the state of
> the art, as explained here:
> Code Reuse and Technological Advancement
Interesting article, and helpful for further argumentation.
Thank you! Exactly my point of view. Bookmarked.
> > > Contracts only depend on other laws not prohibiting them.
> > Correct. That's why a contract cannot make the parties signing it "do
> > unlawful things". But if no explicit laws exist... well, you can almost
> > write _anything_ in the EULA, and if people do accept it, gotcha!
> Now you're mixing up EULAs and contracts again. EULAs are licenses.
The part "LA" in EULA means "license agreement", so I assume this
indicates that I have to agree to something, and an agreement between
two parties is a... contract. The vendor allows me to do certain
things with the software _if_ I agree to the terms. If I do _not_,
I am not legally allowed to use the software, will loose warranty
or am even forced to return the whole computer system.
Keep in mind that I'm not a lawyer and may therefore cultivate
just one opinion about one topic (instead of two opinions). :-)
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
More information about the freebsd-questions