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]
