MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> [...] And if this is a
>> problem, then we have the amendment which will enable the procedure
>> only for future posts.
>
> I'm amazed anyone considers otherwise. It's unethical to publish
> things that debian promised to keep private. I think it also leaves
>
On Monday 21 November 2005 12:00 pm, MJ Ray wrote:
> I'm amazed anyone considers otherwise. It's unethical to publish
> things that debian promised to keep private. I think it also leaves
> us wide open to accusations of infringing copyright.
In the final analysis, does debian-private "own" any of
On Tuesday 15 November 2005 03.08, Anthony Towns wrote:
[...]
> And beyond that, there really are a lot of good ideas stuck in the
> -private archives that it'd be nice to be able to refer to properly.
This seems to be the only reason to me - the other stated reasons can be
paraphrased as 'becaus
Kalle Kivimaa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The proposal guarantees that if an author wishes his/her post(s) to
> remain confidential, they will do so. The proposal has a specific
> procedure that must be followed to publish any -private message,
> either past or future, and the author of the message has a
Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I fully agree with Monroe - WHEN an author writes to
> -private, s/he declares his wishes to expect this information to be kept
> confidential and in some countries s/he may have even guaranteed rights.
The proposal guarantees that if an author wishes his
5 matches
Mail list logo
