Hi Nigel,
Thanks for your defence and all, but please don't treat that so
seriously - this way you only perpetuate that notion that it was
something to kill each other about. If you believe (as I do) that it
was a major overreaction for a simple mistake - then please don't feed
it with even more
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 4:24 PM, Aaron Trevena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Strictly speaking it's illegal for me to use torrents to download
> songs because I'm too lazy to go into the loft, get the LP, find a
> record player, play it, put it back, and even illegal to copy a CD I
> purchased (or e
On 10 Dec 2008, at 11:24, Aaron Trevena wrote:
Strictly speaking it's illegal for me to use torrents to download
songs because I'm too lazy to go into the loft, get the LP, find a
record player, play it, put it back, and even illegal to copy a CD I
purchased (or even to workaround DRM preventing
2008/12/10 Jonathan Stowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2008/12/10 Denny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 14:36 +, Jonathan Stowe wrote:
>>> So, we all think that a site with no O'Reilly branding [...]
>>
>> The first image I can see on that page is the O'Reilly 'Programming
>> Perl' ima
2008/12/10 Nigel Hamilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2008/12/10 Zbigniew Lukasiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> I am really sorry for starting this. I hereby publicly apologize to
>> Larry Wall, Tom Christiansen, Randal L. Schwartz and the publisher.
>>
>
> Don't be sorry. You haven't breached their copyri
2008/12/10 Denny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 14:36 +, Jonathan Stowe wrote:
>> So, we all think that a site with no O'Reilly branding [...]
>
> The first image I can see on that page is the O'Reilly 'Programming
> Perl' image. The second link on the page goes to oreilly.com.
On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 15:02 +, Paul Makepeace wrote:
> On another maybe more interesting topic: so seriously, this site's been
> around for ages, why haven't O'R done something about it? Or have they, but
> just unsuccessfully? It's not like UA doesn't have copyright laws and
> police.
>
> (Th
2008/12/10 Zbigniew Lukasiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I am really sorry for starting this. I hereby publicly apologize to
> Larry Wall, Tom Christiansen, Randal L. Schwartz and the publisher.
>
Don't be sorry. You haven't breached their copyright - it's perfectly
acceptable "fair use" for you to ta
2008/12/10 Radoslaw Zielinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Jonathan Stowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [10-12-2008 15:36]:
> [...]
>> And I said no arguing
>
> http://www.xkcd.com/392/
>
Damn right!
ECTED]>:
> >> > Secondly I find myself surprised that in a discussion that is all
> about
> >> > leniency and being welcoming and not biting peoples heads off that you
> >> make
> >> > such a blanket assumption that the original poster was doing
:
>>> > Secondly I find myself surprised that in a discussion that is all about
>>> > leniency and being welcoming and not biting peoples heads off that you
>>> make
>>> > such a blanket assumption that the original poster was doing this
>>> >
On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 14:36 +, Jonathan Stowe wrote:
> So, we all think that a site with no O'Reilly branding [...]
The first image I can see on that page is the O'Reilly 'Programming
Perl' image. The second link on the page goes to oreilly.com. Call me
gullible, but it wouldn't have occurr
Jonathan Stowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [10-12-2008 15:36]:
[...]
> And I said no arguing
http://www.xkcd.com/392/
--
Radosław Zieliński <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
pgpOdWijgMUqN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
> leniency and being welcoming and not biting peoples heads off that you
>> make
>> > such a blanket assumption that the original poster was doing this
>> > deliberately in full knowledge that it was copyright theft.
>>
>> He didn't make a blanket assumptio
Jonathan Stowe wrote:
2008/12/10 Dirk Koopman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Jonathan Stowe wrote:
I'll put your attempt to get us to participate in copyright theft down
to naivete, stupidity or youthful enthusiasm but please do not do this
again. There are O'Reilly published authors
u
> make
> > such a blanket assumption that the original poster was doing this
> > deliberately in full knowledge that it was copyright theft.
>
> He didn't make a blanket assumption, he put it down to being naive or
> something else
> (and TBH you'd have to be
in full knowledge that it was copyright theft.
He didn't make a blanket assumption, he put it down to being naive or
something else
(and TBH you'd have to be to not realise it was obviously copyright
infringement).
> Had I discovered that site myself, via google (it appears as the th
Jonathan Stowe wrote:
I'll put your attempt to get us to participate in copyright theft down
to naivete, stupidity or youthful enthusiasm but please do not do this
again.
Firstly I completely agree on the issues around copyright theft itself and
that the link should not have been p
2008/12/10 Dirk Koopman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Jonathan Stowe wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I'll put your attempt to get us to participate in copyright theft down
>> to naivete, stupidity or youthful enthusiasm but please do not do this
>> again. There ar
TOWTDI and it was officially allowed to write Perl baby talk - this
is from Programming Perl
I'll put your attempt to get us to participate in copyright theft down
to naivete, stupidity or youthful enthusiasm but please do not do this
again. There are O'Reilly published authors on this li
dies and other idiots. We're
>>> also turning away the 1 in 100 (or whatever) who could learn how to
>>> write a properly designed large application - in any language.
>>
>> I concur very strongly on all your points. One thing to add to this
>> is that at
Jonathan Stowe wrote:
I'll put your attempt to get us to participate in copyright theft down
to naivete, stupidity or youthful enthusiasm but please do not do this
again. There are O'Reilly published authors on this list who I am sure
wouldn't like you to be stealing fr
could learn how to
>> write a properly designed large application - in any language.
>
> I concur very strongly on all your points. One thing to add to this
> is that at the time of the Perl boom - people still believed in
> TIMTOWTDI and it was officially allowed to write Perl
could learn how to
>> write a properly designed large application - in any language.
>
> I concur very strongly on all your points. One thing to add to this
> is that at the time of the Perl boom - people still believed in
> TIMTOWTDI and it was officially allowed to write Perl
24 matches
Mail list logo
