>Most respondents said they liked it as is. Almost all change suggestions came
>from the small minority of respondents who elected not to sign, and thereby (in
>my view) disqualified themselves from editorial participation. Therefore,
>changes are minimal; the only large one is the addition of a paragraph
>describing correct permissions procedure under the Berne Convention.
Aren't you putting that group in a catch-22 situation here? If
someone doesn't like it as is, they certainly shouldn't sign on to it.
But now if they want to make suggestions for changes which would make
it acceptable, you've denied them the right to participate, and so the
changes won't ever be made, and therefore they'll never sign on. And so on.
I was almost willing to sign on, but I'm appalled at what I perceive to
be your attitude here. If you expect me to sign onto something I don't
necessarily agree to *before* accepting any suggestions I might have
for improving it, I don't want to be involved.
> DRAFT
>
>Walnut Creek recently sent a notice to the faq-maintainers list announcing
>its intent to include a snapshot of the FAQ archive on an upcoming CD-ROM.
>The notice includes a form for a request not to have a FAQ included.
[...]
>Our ethical objection is that the express wishes of many of the FAQ authors are
>being ignored in this procedure. Many FAQs have copyrights requiring
>publishers operating either off the Internet or for profit to seek permission
>to publish the content. This requirement is not met by Walnut Creek's stated
>intent to publish unless they receive an explicit request not to. Walnut Creek
>has, under the terms of these copyrights, an affirmative obligation to seek
>individual permission from each such author, and an obligation to *not* publish
>if that permission is not obtained.
>
>Our legal objection is that Walnut Creek's procedure and assumptions are
>squarely in violation of the Berne Convention and U.S. copyright law, and is
>part of a continuing pattern of infringement which constitutes an actionable
>tort.
[...]
>We are taking a stand for the right of FAQ authors to have their copyrights,
>license terms, and intellectual property honored as fully and fairly as they
>would be in any other medium.
>
[...]
I think the letter should also make the point that not all FAQ maintainers
receive the FAQ maintainers mailing list, so Walnut Creek wasn't even
attempting to reach all FAQ maintainers with their speak-now-or-hold-your-peace
offer to remove an FAQ at the authors' request. This is an important
aspect of the situation, especially as regards the ethical objection.
I would say that "Walnut Creek has, under the terms of these copyrights,
an affirmative obligation to seek individual permission from each such
author, including those not on the FAQ Maintainers' mailing list, and an
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
obligation to *not* publish if that permission is not obtained.
----------
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@pppl.gov
Conventional Fusion FAQ and Glossary
* YOU MAY *NOT* INCLUDE ME AS A COSIGNER OF THE LETTER AT THIS POINT *
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved