Re: Releasing steam

Andrew D. Taylor (adt@renc.igs.net)
Tue, 5 Oct 1999 13:39:17 -0400

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Robert Grumbine: "Re: Releasing steam"
Previous message: Larry W. Virden: "Re: Releasing steam"
Maybe in reply to: Uri Raz: "Releasing steam"
Next in thread: Robert Grumbine: "Re: Releasing steam"

>> Now I'm pissed off - why is it that some idiots create broken copies
>> of pages and fail to update it ? isnt it simpler to just make a link
>> to it or ask whomever created the page to make a change (e.g. add an
>> index, like I guess the Korean wanted to do) ?
>
>FAQs create traffic to your (or their) site. This is why a Link will not
>do, I guess.
>
>Ideas
>
>a)
>You can put a copyright on it (the HTML-Version) and 'license' some
>sites to carry it. You can mail the provider of others that they are
>vioalting copyright. (In germany this would make the provider nervous.)

I added a copyright notice to my FAQs back in 1994, around the time that
Walnut Creek put out that CD ROM of rtfm.mit.edu. The primary reason was to
put an up-to-date condition on anyone archiving the FAQ in a publicly
accessible location. It left it open that anyone could archive the FAQ on
the net provided they kept it up-to-date. Rtfm.mit.edu, it's mirrors and
other archives of *.answers fullfil this obligation so long as they continue
to update based on what is posted to *.answers.

The copyright is as follows,

|Copyright (c) 1994-1998 Andrew D. Taylor <af883@freenet.carleton.ca>.
|Permission is granted to put this FAQ on any Internet connected
|archive or other similar electronic online archive so long as all
|parts of the FAQ are accessible in an unmodified form and they are
|kept up to date within reason. Any other public uses are prohibited
|without permission. No restriction is placed on private uses of the
|FAQ.

For the purposes of this copyright, I consider the HTML'izing done at sites
like www.faqs.org as not modifying the FAQ.

>b) You can amke a list of official mirrors at the top and ask ppl there
>to chekc for versions which are up2date.

Or the FAQ can have a section which explains how to get the most up-to-date
version. This in itself implies that the person might be reading an old
version. It also helps to put a "Date last modified:" on the FAQ.

>c) You can vary your mail-address from issue to issue and ignore mails
>that refer to older versions.

Not possible for everyone. If one is setup that way, mail sent to one of
the old addresses could receive a form letter indicating that the person is
refering to an old version of the FAQ. But then that doesn't take into
account, those that put the address in the address book and send mail at a
later date.

>Not all of the above is the nice and 'netty' way to do it, but...

Agreed. But then neither is the misrepresentation of something that one has
worked hard on.

-- Andrew D. Taylor adt@renc.igs.net http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~af883/

Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future. - Niels Bohr

Next message: Robert Grumbine: "Re: Releasing steam"
Previous message: Larry W. Virden: "Re: Releasing steam"
Maybe in reply to: Uri Raz: "Releasing steam"
Next in thread: Robert Grumbine: "Re: Releasing steam"

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