I am bandwidth billed. If I accept a spam, I'm paying for it with my time and money. I strongly begrudge spammers every damn cent they make me pay. It's RBL+DUL+RSS for me, thank you mail-abuse.org.
Whilst I can appreciate your desire to rip to shreds some of the specious arguments presented in this letter, I would humbly suggest in future that you refrain from doing so. The first law of public posting is that someone else always has a smarter angle on the whole thing than you do, so if you act in a restrained manner and don't rip into the offender, someone else will.
Or, to put it simply, next time just post the original letter and invite comments. This way, the Slashdot hordes (ranging from rabid to rapier-witted) can do the barking for you, whilst you can maintain a modicum of disinterested independence.
I think the technique of retroactively granting someone a special license should be used more often. You know how lawyers are always jumping up and down on people about trademarks because of "dilution" rules, even to the extent of pissing off supporters/fans of their product? Instead of sending out "cease and desist" notices, they should send out notices of permission, granting their supporters/fans the limited right to use their logos, etc. This way their trademark is not diluted ("they had permission, your honour") and the fans aren't peeved -- in fact they are probably chuffed.
Getting back on topic, if someone unintentionally violates your copyright license but you happen to like what they've done because it's in the right spirit of things, then grant them a special permission.
Slashdot Mirror
I am bandwidth billed. If I accept a spam, I'm paying for it with my time and money. I strongly begrudge spammers every damn cent they make me pay. It's RBL+DUL+RSS for me, thank you mail-abuse.org.
Commander,
Whilst I can appreciate your desire to rip to shreds some of the specious arguments presented in this letter, I would humbly suggest in future that you refrain from doing so. The first law of public posting is that someone else always has a smarter angle on the whole thing than you do, so if you act in a restrained manner and don't rip into the offender, someone else will.
Or, to put it simply, next time just post the original letter and invite comments. This way, the Slashdot hordes (ranging from rabid to rapier-witted) can do the barking for you, whilst you can maintain a modicum of disinterested independence.
Please consider.
Regards,
TFBW
I think the technique of retroactively granting someone a special license should be used more often. You know how lawyers are always jumping up and down on people about trademarks because of "dilution" rules, even to the extent of pissing off supporters/fans of their product? Instead of sending out "cease and desist" notices, they should send out notices of permission, granting their supporters/fans the limited right to use their logos, etc. This way their trademark is not diluted ("they had permission, your honour") and the fans aren't peeved -- in fact they are probably chuffed.
Getting back on topic, if someone unintentionally violates your copyright license but you happen to like what they've done because it's in the right spirit of things, then grant them a special permission.