[Wolves] Please Don't......

[Kevanf1]

On 20/08/07, Ron Wellsted <ron at wellsted.org.uk> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Kevanf1 wrote:
> > On 19/08/07, Dave Morley <davmor2 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> Hash: SHA1
> >>
> >> This is just a general reminder to please not post links to content that
> >> is not free to view. It can come back to haunt us through the lovely
> >> archiving system.  If content is a tutorial on a free website that is
> >> fine.  But if content is not under a free to view licensing like CC or
> >> GPL etc then Please Don't Do It.
> >
> > Sorry for being thick/ignorant (delete as appropriate) but I do not
> > understand this at all :-(  What is wrong with a tutorial if one has
> > to pay for it?  Isn't most education paid for in some way or another?
> > What about books?  Are links to books not allowed as they are not
> > normally free (I'm not counting the freebies like the kernel hacking
> > one that is available as a free download).
> >
> > Correct me if I am wrong but if one cannot access a website without
> > paying for a subscription then the link simply will not work.  Or is
> > that what you mean?  In which case I wholeheartedly agree :-)
>
> There is no problem in having to pay for content if you are prepared to
> do so.  The problem is that paid-for content is usually distributed or
> made accessible under the terms a restrictive license, which usually
> prohibits sharing the content with other people.  Such restrictions will
> usually be associated with the relevant copyright notice.
>
> While the Linux/FOSS community supports the free and open distribution
> of software and such for the common good, we must also respect the
> rights of those who have chosen not to follow this route, no matter how
> much we disagree with their position.  The danger is that various people
> who work very hard (unpaid!) for the good of the community could be
> threatened by the relevant copyright owners (with blunt instruments like
> lawyers) for breaches of the copyright.  Such an incident would, at the
> very least consume an unreasonable amount of their time and at the worst
> may cost them a great deal of money and the removal/loss of the service
> that they currently provide.
>

Which is fair enough and I also accept what Adam has said and agree
with it wholeheartedly.  May I suggest that the original declaration
be redone to say links are fine but not content?  With the proviso
that the links are not to an illegal site with illegal copies of PDF's
etc?  I had generally accepted that we didn't do attachments on this
list anyway...I was obviously wrong in this assumption...
-- 
==============================================

Kevan Farmer
Linux user #373362
Staffordshire