It's clear that it's perfectly legal for Time to alter the contents of their own website however they choose. The question is whether it's ethical, and how to respond to the larger problem of the lack of accurate online archives.
Silently removing an article from the site, and removing any reference to it from a table of contents that is ostensibly complete, is so misleading as to be dishonest. I therefore think it is unethical; I encourage everyone to
write to TIME.com to protest.
Unfortunately, it seems that StarOffice is the best currently available office suite for Linux. However, it is a Windows/MSOffice rip-off, minus some of the MSOffice functionality. Furthermore, it's not even open source--it's released under a one-user-only, you-have-no-right-to-distribute-reverse-engineer-o r-modify-this-software license comparable to that of most commercial software products. Other than making it possible to spend more time in Linux, what's the point? Also, given that Sun has a snowball's chance in hell of getting StarOffice to compete in any meaningful way with MSOffice in the current situation (they can't even give it away), why not release StarOffice under an open source license? Maybe that would get it somewhere. Hopefully AbiWord & pals will develop successfully.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I think "best practices" means "best existing practices" or "best known practices", not "best possible practices".
A very insightful post, though.
It's clear that it's perfectly legal for Time to alter the contents of their own website however they choose. The question is whether it's ethical, and how to respond to the larger problem of the lack of accurate online archives. Silently removing an article from the site, and removing any reference to it from a table of contents that is ostensibly complete, is so misleading as to be dishonest. I therefore think it is unethical; I encourage everyone to write to TIME.com to protest.
Unfortunately, it seems that StarOffice is the best currently available office suite for Linux. However, it is a Windows/MSOffice rip-off, minus some of the MSOffice functionality. Furthermore, it's not even open source--it's released under a one-user-only, you-have-no-right-to-distribute-reverse-engineer-o r-modify-this-software license comparable to that of most commercial software products. Other than making it possible to spend more time in Linux, what's the point? Also, given that Sun has a snowball's chance in hell of getting StarOffice to compete in any meaningful way with MSOffice in the current situation (they can't even give it away), why not release StarOffice under an open source license? Maybe that would get it somewhere. Hopefully AbiWord & pals will develop successfully.