free sco unix

[Chad Perrin]

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.

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:
> > > 
> > > Copyright and ownership of creation just makes sure that someone
> > > can't express OTHER's work as his own, as it is currently in the
> > > media in Germany - "honorable" academics (now politicians) got
> > > convicted having copied massive amounts (>50%) in their thesis,
> > > without STATING that they copied them (proper quoting with
> > > identification of the source).
> > 
> > This is not really true.  Plagiarism is not the focus of copyright;
> > copying is.  That's why it's called "copyright" (at least in
> > English), and not "attributionright".  There is, in fact, no law that
> > specifically relates to attribution per se, at least in most
> > countries.  To deal with plagiarism, one must look at the specific
> > case of plagiarism and see where the act requires running afoul of
> > some other law as well.
> > 
> > Fraud would be the most obvious case, except for the fact that in
> > most jurisdictions one can generally only effectively pursue a fraud
> > case if there is money involved in the act of fraud.  Copyright
> > itself is, absent any associated side-effects, reducible to one of
> > two things (depending on perspective): monopoly or censorship.  It is
> > sometimes used to punish people who plagiarize, but only because it
> > is often difficult to plagiarize something without copying and
> > distributing it somehow.
> 
> Yes - fraud is exactly the word I was searching for. Sorry if I was
> cmp(apples, oranges); :-)

Glad we cleared that up, then.


> > >
> > > 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
    http://blogstrapping.com/?page=2011.060.00.28.21


> > 
> > They're not really contracts unless you explicitly agree to them.
> > Implicit "agreement" is a matter of licensing, because it depends on
> > copyright law.
> 
> As I said, it's _highly_ debatable if the EULAs as we know them do have
> _any_ value. How can you make an opinion about IF to sign a contract
> when you've signed it the moment you opened the box (in order to GET
> the contract)?

They have plenty of value to those who wish to have the power to force
others to "agree" to terms to which they would never, if they were aware
of them, agree.


> >
> > 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.
They are not contracts, specifically because there is no explicit
agreement prior to they (presumably) apply.

-- 
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/attachments/20110617/a88d6f86/attachment.pgp