On 27 June 2010 21:30, Dennis During wrote:
> I would have thought almost any copying (such as what the software routinely
> does on, say, this very e-mail) would be at worst "fair use".
You've copied the email as a by-product of replying to it to provide
context. I think that is very clearly fai
I would have thought almost any copying (such as what the software routinely
does on, say, this very e-mail) would be at worst "fair use".
COPYVIO follows
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 27 June 2010 15:29, Aphaia wrote:
> > In a certain jurisdiction, only c
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Andrew Garrett wrote:
> I don't know why you bothered putting him on moderation if you were
> just going to forward all of his emails to the list. Please, keep the
> discussion off this list, in order to prevent the disruption which you
> sought to limit by placin
On 27 June 2010 15:29, Aphaia wrote:
> In a certain jurisdiction, only creative expression can be under
> protection of laws. I have no comment, since I don't follow the whole
> discussion, if it is related to the mail in question.
Sure, but I think "creative expression" is usually interpreted ve
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 27 June 2010 13:55, Dennis During wrote:
>> Are you saying that one can't disclose correspondence to any third-party
>> without consent of both parties? In what jurisdictions?
>
> The law is a little out-of-date. When someone sends you a
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 10:29:28AM +0200, Peter Gervai wrote:
> Good contributors shouldn't be driven
> away even if they became obssessed or believe they're gods. Maybe he
> needs a vacation (a longer one), not a kickban.
>
Vacation is fine.
> Good contributors have earned the "right" to spend
On 27 June 2010 13:55, Dennis During wrote:
> Are you saying that one can't disclose correspondence to any third-party
> without consent of both parties? In what jurisdictions?
The law is a little out-of-date. When someone sends you a physical
letter you can give that letter to anyone you like,
Are you saying that one can't disclose correspondence to any third-party
without consent of both parties? In what jurisdictions?
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 4:53 AM, K. Peachey wrote:
> He is also a "bit" miffed about you forwarding the message to the
> list, as you are probably aware, emails are s
He is also a "bit" miffed about you forwarding the message to the
list, as you are probably aware, emails are still copyrighted.
-Peachey
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/lis
I don't know why you bothered putting him on moderation if you were
just going to forward all of his emails to the list. Please, keep the
discussion off this list, in order to prevent the disruption which you
sought to limit by placing Jeffrey on moderation.
--
Andrew Garrett
http://werdn.us/
__
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 01:51, Kim Bruning wrote:
> Hmm, we had a similar issue with ru.wikibooks at one point, where some people
> thought they were "in charge", and had to be removed.
Apart from Jeffrey acting really quite weird I believe there should be
at least a round of trying to convince
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 08:29:18PM +0100, AGK wrote:
> > -- Forwarded message --
> > From: Jeffrey Peters <17pet...@cardinalmail.cua.edu>
> > Date: Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 4:45 PM
> > Subject: Foundation-l
> > To: adh...@gmail.com
>
> > I already removed my access from foundation-l an
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Jeffrey Peters <17pet...@cardinalmail.cua.edu>
> Date: Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 4:45 PM
> Subject: Foundation-l
> To: adh...@gmail.com
> I already removed my access from foundation-l and filed an official
> protest as the lead operator at Wikiversity a
13 matches
Mail list logo
