On Thu, 31 May 2012 21:19:23 +0200, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > On Thu, 31 May 2012 18:25:14 +0200, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > > Shame on you.
> > > 
> > > Don't you know that linking to links that link to links that have DCMA'd
> > > is a crime?
> > > 
> > > Enjoy the bars.
> > 
> > I'm sure quoting mails that link to links that link to DCMA'd links is a
> > felony, too.
> > 
> > Perhaps we'll be sharing a cell.
> 
> Probably.  But you'll be serving two terms, and I only one.

Very clever. But those who give up their right to link to DCMA'd links
for a little more liberty deserve neither. Or something very close to
that.

> > > > On Thu, 31 May 2012 17:12:58 +0200, Ted Unangst wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:11, Brett wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Pursuant to a rights owner notice under the Digital Millennium 
> > > > > > Copyright
> > > > > > Act (DMCA), the Wikimedia Foundation acted under the law and took 
> > > > > > down and
> > > > > > restricted the content in question. A copy of the received notice 
> > > > > > can be
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Reverse engineering necessary to have open source in the brave new 
> > > > > > world?
> > > > > 
> > > > > PCI spec docs (and many others) are copyrighted.  Maybe they should 
> > > > > be,
> > > > > maybe they shouldn't, but they are.
> > > > > 
> > > > > As far as I know, the actual specs cannot be copyrighted (or it's
> > > > > murky), but knowing wikipedia, somebody probably copied an entire
> > > > > table from the doc and dropped it into the article.  that's a no-no,
> > > > > and not something I'd find nearly as alarming as "censorship".
> > > > 
> > > > Actually, the crime consisted in linking to a few PDFs located
> > > > elsewhere. The last revision of the article to contain the links is:
> > > > 
> > > > [LINK DELETED]

Reply via email to