On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:15:16 -0400 (EDT)
Stan Ryckman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tom Neff writes:
>> J C Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> There is no secrecy, or control of the dissemination of data once
>> it is posted.
> I think that's a bad message to send out... yes, it does carry the
> message warning that what you post is at risk for being spread by
> virtue of its being posted. On the other hand, it seems to say
> that it's OK to freely distribute other list members' posts, and I
> don't think that's a good thing to imply.
That is exactly my intent. Just as the other text states, the list
is a public forum in the sense of occuring in a space freely
available to the general public both as reference and raw material,
where that publis is defined as both the current (largely unknown)
audience and all possible future audiences.
ObNote: I have a few members who refuse to post because of this,
or some ramification of this (in two cases because there are web
archives, the third I don't know about).
More simply, my lists are intended to forward the state and
definition of the art of their respective fields through discourse,
and are being effective in that purpose. To do that end they must
be flat playing fields, both among the set of members at any given
time, and across and as compared to the possible audiences at any
later time. Public domain would be wonderful except that it removes
all rights and expectations as to claims of authorship,
identification, and versimilitude. Those three I consider critical
-- the rest is dross.
> More accurate would be "you retain copyright and control over your
> individual message but don't expect the list-owner to help you
> enforce it."
At an effective level, yes, that is synonymous as it has the same
result.
--
J C Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------(*) http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/
--=| A man is as sane as he is dangerous to his environment |=--
