> So far, only James Miller and Florian Lohoff > have shown a correct reading of this discussion. > An explicit OpenContent agreement is indeed > the way to go. >
As a point of clarification, I think postings to a mailing list will be interpreted to allow archiving. The affirmative right to retract mail postings is only available in select moral rights jursidictions and is seriously constrained (there is very little case law on point). Additionally you can effect a license without express authorization, despite your assertions to the contrary. However, making the the policy explicit may minimize likelihood of any complaint against Debian and eliminate any possible misunderstandings for people unfamiliar with the process. I don't think there is infringement without it, because mailing list archivers and managers enjoy a non-exclusive license defined by the reasonable industry practice. I also disagree with commentors that an explicit provision would be counterproductive. If any single term of a contract is held unenforceable, other terms may still be enforceable (most contracts, leases, etc. have such a provision). I am very sympathetic to author's concerns for their work but as the many comments reflect participating in open and free discourse has certain consequences. Either embrace the rich proliferation of knowledge enjoying some limited rights over your work, or horde your thoughts in solitude. I hope you will see the value of participation. Ultimately, Sergio and others should consider what their goal is (legal and otherwise). If you don't want to have your name popping up all over make an anonymous email and post with that. Many authors both past and present have adopted this strategy to distribute their works while preserving their privacy. cheers > Sergio >
