On Tue, Nov 23, 1999 at 05:06:26PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > It's a lot easier to put some stuff up on a website once you've made some > changes than it is to `regularly monitor the webiste for any notices'. The > former requires you to give the code to a friend to stick up somewhere, > the latter requires you to have regular internet access, and to keep > track of a website whose URL may change.
Technically, you would be regularly monitoring the web site if you looked at it, say, once every millenium (or whatever). Isn't this kind of like the "reasonable copying fee" in the Artistic license (except that there it is defined to mean that, which is probably the only reason it doesn't fail the DFSG)? Of course the legal interpretation might be different. IANAL. Actually, wouldn't even "never monitoring" be "regularly monitoring"? You are monitoring according to a rule, which seems to me that it fits the dictionary definitions in 1913 Webster's, WordNet and the 1982 Concise Oxford Dictionary. I doubt this is what AT&T intended, but that is what regular means. Of course this will discriminate against "those who monitor the website irregularly", so it might still fail the DFSG. To take the argument about what "regular" means even further, can't you argue that _anything_ can fit? I monitor it when I feel like looking at it. I monitor it when I need to know something. Etc. It might be hard to convince a court that this is a reasonable interpretation of regular, though. :-( This is probably not really very relevant to the discussion, but maybe some good can come of it. Or not. -- Patrik Nordebo [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www-und.ida.liu.se/~patno092 Phone: +46-(0)13-176664 Cell Phone: +46-(0)70-2361075 snail mail: Rydsvagen 48C, 584 31 Linkoping, Sweden
