Revised summary alternative Walnut Creek letter

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Ian Jackson: "Correction to revised alternative letter"
• Previous message: Daniel P. B. Smith: "How about a THIRD proposed letter to Walnut Creek?"

Here is a revised version:

We, the FAQ maintainers who are listed below, disagree with the
opinion of some of our colleagues that your actions in placing FAQs
on your Internet Info CDROM is in violation of our copyright. We
feel that similar activities have a long precedent on USENET, and do
not require prior permission.

Furthermore, we recognise that you are supplying a valuable service:
that of access to (a portion of) USENET, to a population who would
otherwise be denied that benefit.

Your offer to send authors of FAQs included on your CDROM is
appreciated, as is the service you are providing to those who would
otherwise be denied access to this material.

If you'd like me to put your name to this please let me know, and say
which FAQ(s) you maintain.

The following people said they'd sign the original rebuttal - could
they please confirm that this letter is also acceptable ?

Paul Schleck <pschleck@gonix.gonix.com>
(which FAQs do you maintain?)
Richard Cochran <rcochran@netcom.com>
(comp.sys.palmtops HP100LX FAQ)
Steve (what's your surname) <pearl@remus.rutgers.edu>
(FAQs in rec.arts.anime, rec.arts.manga, alt.fan.bgc,
rec.arts.anime.marketplace, moderator of rec.arts.anime.info)

Has the original letter been sent yet ?

Ian.

• Next message: Ian Jackson: "Correction to revised alternative letter"
• Previous message: Daniel P. B. Smith: "How about a THIRD proposed letter to Walnut Creek?"

[ Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive | Search Mail Archive | Authors | Usenet ]
[ 1993 | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 ]