Hi all, I have seen international bulletin boards (forums to be more exact) using free software like phpbb, SMF (Simple Machines Forum) but most forums which are dedicated either tech or anything else most seem to go for a proprietary board like vbulletin .
Does anybody know of good boards which use any GPL/BSD or any soft or hard copyleft license .
I am looking for forums and boards where atleast 10-15 people are posting daily and it doesn't have to be tech. So any topic is ok.
Comments, ideas, suggestions welcome.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 3:57 PM, shirish shirishag75@gmail.com wrote:
Does anybody know of good boards which use any GPL/BSD or any soft or hard copyleft license .
Why not CC as your email?
This email is licensed under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/
Reply in-line :-
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 16:05, Kartik Mistry kartik.mistry@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 3:57 PM, shirish shirishag75@gmail.com wrote:
Does anybody know of good boards which use any GPL/BSD or any soft or hard copyleft license .
Why not CC as your email?
Even that is cool, although I have seen art and literature use CC mostly not software code (although arguably its also art)
In case if you know any which use CC that would also be cool to know.
This email is licensed under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/
-- Cheers, Kartik Mistry | 0xD1028C8D | IRC: kart_ Homepage: people.debian.org/~kartik Blog.en: ftbfs.wordpress.com Blog.gu: kartikm.wordpress.com -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
On Saturday 10 Jan 2009 4:25:27 pm shirish wrote:
Why not CC as your email?
Even that is cool, although I have seen art and literature use CC mostly not software code (although arguably its also art)
and is your mail art or literature?
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 16:35, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:
<snip>
and is your mail art or literature?
its both for me.
-- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Associate NRC-FOSS http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/ -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 4:43 PM, shirish shirishag75@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 16:35, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:
and is your mail art or literature?
its both for me.
Since, other don't want to release their email under CC, you can change your signature to: 'My quotes in this email licensed under CC' or something to avoid problems..
On Saturday 10 Jan 2009 4:43:11 pm shirish wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 16:35, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:
<snip>
and is your mail art or literature?
its both for me.
could you explain what exactly is artistic, literary or even creative about the sentence 'its both for me'?
And before I am flamed for nitpicking, I would like to explain why I am flaming shirish:
I feel that by mindlessly releasing all his mails under a CC license he is guilty of trivialising and abusing the CC license which will bring it into disrepute.
Strong words! But justified.
Some time back, the government mandated playing the national anthem after every film show. Then they stopped. Reason: people were walking out during the playing of the anthem and thus disrespecting it. The national anthem should be played only on important occasions so that the respect is maintained. Same with creative commons license - and GPL also.
If you look at the home page of CC you will find this text:
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Before_Licensing
this describes all the steps you have to take before releasing a work under the CC. Just putting it in a footer is mindless application of the license and an insult to the creators of the license.
So what happens if everyone follows Shirish and releases all their mails under CC? CC will cease to have any meaning at all. No one will respect it.
Please realise that the CC license has been crafted with great application of mind and care to ensure that genuine creativity be shared - and protected. Abuse of this license is an insult to the creators of the license and to the genuine artists who use it.
This applies not only to CC but also to the GPL. I am often accused as being anti GPL. I am not. I feel that GPL is an extremely powerful weapon - and as a powerful weapon it should be used in the right place and at the right time. I wept tears of joy when Harald Welte won his suit against Dlink and ran around like a madman showing everyone in the centre the first Dlink device I bought which mentioned the GPL. Yes, mission critical stuff like the linux kernel or iptables belongs with the GPL. Not cut and paste stuff that is 98% of software that is written.
Shirish has been candid enough to say that he will not change no matter how much I flame him. He has also said he is not bitter about the fact that I flame him. So why beat my head against a brick wall? Simple: he is incurable, but I am interested to make sure that the disease does not spread.
So, think before you use/abuse licenses.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 17:48, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:
could you explain what exactly is artistic, literary or even creative about the sentence 'its both for me'?
It would take a long looooooong time to explain hence would do some other time (in jest, please don't take it seriously)
And before I am flamed for nitpicking, I would like to explain why I am flaming shirish:
I feel that by mindlessly releasing all his mails under a CC license he is guilty of trivialising and abusing the CC license which will bring it into disrepute. Strong words! But justified.
Some time back, the government mandated playing the national anthem after every film show. Then they stopped. Reason: people were walking out during the playing of the anthem and thus disrespecting it. The national anthem should be played only on important occasions so that the respect is maintained. Same with creative commons license - and GPL also. If you look at the home page of CC you will find this text:
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Before_Licensing
this describes all the steps you have to take before releasing a work under the CC. Just putting it in a footer is mindless application of the license and an insult to the creators of the license.
You know what's funny. Its funny that how ideas change and how the interpretation changes over time. In 2005 when I started writing mails for support and whatever I asked on the CC mailing list as to which would be a good license and was told this one is good.
I don't want to get into debates of what's art, what's creativity because simply put its each to its own.
What would you call art and literature?
For me its the formation of words strung together in one's own fashion or understanding that makes it unique enough.
As for trivializing I really don't know, there are so many things being trivialized around me I just don't care.
Financial Governance, Stock Markets, the mailing list
So what happens if everyone follows Shirish and releases all their mails under CC? CC will cease to have any meaning at all. No one will respect it.
Its not question of a single license, its a perception and perceptions differs.
I would throw a classic behavior or pattern I have seen.
Have you seen the openclipart.org project ?
Now that is something that should have had tremendous growth but so many free software games I have seen they like to have their own repository and they use CC or some other license to protect themselves and most of them haven't been able to attract artists.
Why is that?
Please realise that the CC license has been crafted with great application of mind and care to ensure that genuine creativity be shared - and protected. Abuse of this license is an insult to the creators of the license and to the genuine artists who use it.
I had a conversation with a beautiful woman sometime back who works with struggling artists.
The artists know that if they make any painting and if its any good it would be copied instantly. Whether its painting or whatever shape.
The only use of CC they use is to let people know who actually made a painting and if that art could be used in some other dimension which the artist didn't think of (or just the possibility) . They are not thinking of protecting copyright because they just can't.
Times of India had been one of the worse plagarists and 99% of the time they don't pay a cent. Of course they are not the only publication in India. There are many more in the regional language. After all we have close to 3,500 newspapers (and god knows how many magazines and stuff)
This applies not only to CC but also to the GPL. I am often accused as being anti GPL. I am not. I feel that GPL is an extremely powerful weapon - and as a powerful weapon it should be used in the right place and at the right time. I wept tears of joy when Harald Welte won his suit against Dlink and ran around like a madman showing everyone in the centre the first Dlink device I bought which mentioned the GPL. Yes, mission critical stuff like the linux kernel or iptables belongs with the GPL. Not cut and paste stuff that is 98% of software that is written.
This is what Kenneth is talking about.
http://thinkingopen.wordpress.com/2006/09/27/d-link-found-to-have-violated-t...
The war is not over yet, there is whole new chapter with FSF going with Cisco (D-link is now owned by Cisco)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/8857828/Comlaint-FSF-Cisco-GNU
Shirish has been candid enough to say that he will not change no matter how much I flame him. He has also said he is not bitter about the fact that I flame him. So why beat my head against a brick wall? Simple: he is incurable, but I am interested to make sure that the disease does not spread.
Cool.
So, think before you use/abuse licenses.
-- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Associate NRC-FOSS http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/
On Saturday 10 Jan 2009, shirish wrote:
[snip] Shirish Agarwal My quotes in this email licensed under CC 3.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/
I suggest that NC (non-commercial) is a bad license for a mailing list, since it adds all sorts of unnecessary restrictions to what can be done with the list archives.
E.g., going by the spirit of the licence, I'm prevented from selling the list archives on CD.
I further suggest that individual licences on individual mails to a list is, at best, impractical and at worst unfriendly.
I haven't yet seen a resolution to the question of what licence mails to a mailing list are subject to yet (remember having this discussion as far back as 1996 or so), but IMO each individual contributor mailing under a licence of his/her choice is unacceptable. What if one person selects the GFDL for her mails, another CC-BY, another CC-SA, another CC-NC, and a few more select a few more licences? It will be impossible to do anything with the list archives... heck, even backing up your private copy of the archives may become illegal.
There should be a blanket licence for all postings to the list, and if an individual contributor doesn't like that s/he is welcome to not post to the list at all. List admins?
Regards,
-- Raju
List
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 11:41 PM, Raj Mathur raju@linux-delhi.org wrote:
I haven't yet seen a resolution to the question of what licence mails to a mailing list are subject to yet (remember having this discussion as far back as 1996 or so), but IMO each individual contributor mailing under a licence of his/her choice is unacceptable. What if one person selects the GFDL for her mails, another CC-BY, another CC-SA, another CC-NC, and a few more select a few more licences? It will be impossible to do anything with the list archives... heck, even backing up your private copy of the archives may become illegal.
There should be a blanket licence for all postings to the list, and if an individual contributor doesn't like that s/he is welcome to not post to the list at all. List admins?
OK... This looks like a nice argument against licensing individual mails to list..
Let us debate it a little more and we will make necessary changes in the list guidelines.
Regards,
-- Raju
With regards,
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 11:54 PM, Dinesh Shah (દિનેશ શાહ/दिनेश शाह) dineshah@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 11:41 PM, Raj Mathur raju@linux-delhi.org wrote:
There should be a blanket licence for all postings to the list, and if an individual contributor doesn't like that s/he is welcome to not post to the list at all. List admins?
OK... This looks like a nice argument against licensing individual mails to list..
Let us debate it a little more and we will make necessary changes in the list guidelines.
I go with the idea of blanket licensing to cover all the posts to the mailing list. If say wikipedia allows all it's contributors to license their contributions under whatever license they would like to would it be possible to make wikipedia archive and use it? Would the content be as useful then? The same thing could be applied to software. If each individual applies their own licensing to the piece of code submitted by them, distributing that software under a open source license would be one big mess. It is important to keep a blanket license which covers the whole entity, the mailing list in this case. In case somebody wants to put their views under a separate license they can make use of the mails and use it outside the mailing list, subject to confirming to the license terms, to make their statement using their desired medium.
On Sunday 11 Jan 2009 1:11:28 am Mehul Ved wrote:
I go with the idea of blanket licensing to cover all the posts to the mailing list.
why license at all?
At 10:52 AM 1/12/2009, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Sunday 11 Jan 2009 1:11:28 am Mehul Ved wrote:
I go with the idea of blanket licensing to cover all the posts to the mailing list.
why license at all?
One reason to have a blanket license could be to protect you, i.e. the member of the mailing list. So many people are in the habit of using disclaimers like : "This message is intended for the recipient etc. etc. ad nauseum...." that one wonders if one should read that email at all. But of course, once you read an email, you cannot unread it.
So what's the way out:
Simple. When a user registers on the mailing list, he agrees that all of his emails to the list are available under the blanket license chosen by the list administrators and that this license supercedes all other conditions that a poster may add on to his emails to the list.
why license at all?
IIRC, all mails to this list are in the Public Domain. I believe that was always the intent - at least as far back as I can remember. Perhaps we should make this explicit in the guidelines so that people who don't like that can refrain from mailing the list.
Philip Tellis wrote:
why license at all?
IIRC, all mails to this list are in the Public Domain. I believe that was always the intent - at least as far back as I can remember. Perhaps we should make this explicit in the guidelines so that people who don't like that can refrain from mailing the list.
Just want to mention my experience with messages on this list. I had written a mail about an issue of LFY and it included a balanced view. In the next month's issue I find my message on this list being printed in the letters section and they neatly assembled only those lines that were positive about LFY. All this without my knowledge of the same.
On Mon, January 12, 2009 11:20 pm, Rony said:
Philip Tellis wrote:
why license at all?
IIRC, all mails to this list are in the Public Domain. I believe that was always the intent - at least as far back as I can remember. Perhaps we should make this explicit in the guidelines so that people who don't like that can refrain from mailing the list.
Just want to mention my experience with messages on this list. I had written a mail about an issue of LFY and it included a balanced view. In the next month's issue I find my message on this list being printed in the letters section and they neatly assembled only those lines that were positive about LFY. All this without my knowledge of the same.
Regret that permission was not taken from you in addition to you not being notified about it. If you could direct me to the mail (from the mailing list archives) and the issue of LFY where it was published, it'd help me review that matter.
Best, Atanu
On Mon, January 12, 2009 11:20 pm, Rony said:
Philip Tellis wrote:
IIRC, all mails to this list are in the Public Domain. [snip]
Just want to mention my experience with messages on this list. I had written a mail about an issue of LFY and it included a balanced view. In the next month's issue I find my message on this list being printed in the letters section and they neatly assembled only those lines that were positive about LFY. All this without my knowledge of the same.
If the mail is in the public domain then LFY has not done anything wrong -- they are within their rights to print the mail, mangle it, change attribution, select, cut and paste without any obligation to inform the original author. That's what public domain means.
Regards,
-- Raju
Raj Mathur wrote:
On Mon, January 12, 2009 11:20 pm, Rony said:
Philip Tellis wrote:
IIRC, all mails to this list are in the Public Domain. [snip]
Just want to mention my experience with messages on this list. I had written a mail about an issue of LFY and it included a balanced view. In the next month's issue I find my message on this list being printed in the letters section and they neatly assembled only those lines that were positive about LFY. All this without my knowledge of the same.
If the mail is in the public domain then LFY has not done anything wrong -- they are within their rights to print the mail, mangle it, change attribution, select, cut and paste without any obligation to inform the original author. That's what public domain means.
I do not think public domain means that you can take an article, twist its meaning and pretend that the author means something completely different. Public Domain means you are allowed to quote it, use the statement in your own documents. But not to defame the author by claiming something he did not say
Regards,
-- Raju
On Tuesday 13 Jan 2009 2:54:25 pm Saswata Banerjee wrote:
If the mail is in the public domain then LFY has not done anything wrong -- they are within their rights to print the mail, mangle it, change attribution, select, cut and paste without any obligation to inform the original author. That's what public domain means.
I do not think public domain means that you can take an article, twist its meaning and pretend that the author means something completely different. Public Domain means you are allowed to quote it, use the statement in your own documents. But not to defame the author by claiming something he did not say
when releasing your work under public domain, you relinquish your rights under the law of copyright - but you still have all your rights under the law of torts and criminal law. Which means that if someone distorts what you said, and attributes it to you, you can sue them or prosecute them.
On Wednesday 14 January 2009 09:29, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
I do not think public domain means that you can take an article, twist its meaning and pretend that the author means something completely different. Public Domain means you are allowed to quote it, use the statement in your own documents. But not to defame the author by claiming something he did not say
when releasing your work under public domain, you relinquish your rights under the law of copyright - but you still have all your rights under the law of torts and criminal law. Which means that if someone distorts what you said, and attributes it to you, you can sue them or prosecute them.
Interesting. But do you still retain the copyright, and others dont need permission from you to use subject to torts and criminal law?
On Wednesday 14 Jan 2009 10:34:03 am jtd wrote:
when releasing your work under public domain, you relinquish your rights under the law of copyright - but you still have all your rights under the law of torts and criminal law. Which means that if someone distorts what you said, and attributes it to you, you can sue them or prosecute them.
Interesting. But do you still retain the copyright, and others dont need permission from you to use subject to torts and criminal law?
releasing something in public domain simply means relinquishing copyright. Public domain is *not* a license. Once you relinquish your copyright, no one has copyright on the work. Anyone can use it as they like without any permission or need to attribute.
For example, the works of shakespeare are in public domain. Anyone can print them in any way they want, with or without distortions and shakespeare, or his heirs cannot complain. But if I published a shakespeare sonnet as if I was the author, I would be guilty of plagiarism - and depending on the context, subject to various penalties. If I did the same with a copyrighted work, I can be sued for breach of copyright as well as be subject to the penalties connected with plagiarism.
Similarly I can publish Rony's comments without attribution - I can also distort or mangle them - but if I do so in such a way as to imply that he has said something he has not said, he has a cause of action to sue me in the civil court, and possible also a case under section 499/500 IPC to prosecute me in the criminal court.
There is a group of people spreading FUD that the BSD license is public domain. It is not. It is a license, and the author retains copyright with all the rights that he has not released under the license.
There is also the view that public domain is not recognised in law - but as far as India is concerned, the copyright act recognises public domain, so that is not an issue here.
On Wednesday 14 January 2009 10:54, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Wednesday 14 Jan 2009 10:34:03 am jtd wrote:
when releasing your work under public domain, you relinquish your rights under the law of copyright - but you still have all your rights under the law of torts and criminal law. Which means that if someone distorts what you said, and attributes it to you, you can sue them or prosecute them.
Interesting. But do you still retain the copyright, and others dont need permission from you to use subject to torts and criminal law?
releasing something in public domain simply means relinquishing copyright. Public domain is *not* a license. Once you relinquish your copyright, no one has copyright on the work. Anyone can use it as they like without any permission or need to attribute.
For example, the works of shakespeare are in public domain. Anyone can print them in any way they want, with or without distortions and shakespeare, or his heirs cannot complain. But if I published a shakespeare sonnet as if I was the author, I would be guilty of plagiarism - and depending on the context, subject to various penalties. If I did the same with a copyrighted work, I can be sued for breach of copyright as well as be subject to the penalties connected with plagiarism.
Similarly I can publish Rony's comments without attribution - I can also distort or mangle them - but if I do so in such a way as to imply that he has said something he has not said, he has a cause of action to sue me in the civil court, and possible also a case under section 499/500 IPC to prosecute me in the criminal court.
There is a group of people spreading FUD that the BSD license is public domain. It is not. It is a license, and the author retains copyright with all the rights that he has not released under the license.
There is also the view that public domain is not recognised in law
- but as far as India is concerned, the copyright act recognises
public domain, so that is not an issue here.
Thanks. That was most useful.
Reply in-line :-
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 10:54, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:
On Wednesday 14 Jan 2009 10:34:03 am jtd wrote:
when releasing your work under public domain, you relinquish your rights under the law of copyright - but you still have all your rights under the law of torts and criminal law. Which means that if someone distorts what you said, and attributes it to you, you can sue them or prosecute them.
Interesting. But do you still retain the copyright, and others dont need permission from you to use subject to torts and criminal law?
releasing something in public domain simply means relinquishing copyright. Public domain is *not* a license. Once you relinquish your copyright, no one has copyright on the work. Anyone can use it as they like without any permission or need to attribute.
For example, the works of shakespeare are in public domain. Anyone can print them in any way they want, with or without distortions and shakespeare, or his heirs cannot complain. But if I published a shakespeare sonnet as if I was the author, I would be guilty of plagiarism - and depending on the context, subject to various penalties. If I did the same with a copyrighted work, I can be sued for breach of copyright as well as be subject to the penalties connected with plagiarism.
Similarly I can publish Rony's comments without attribution - I can also distort or mangle them - but if I do so in such a way as to imply that he has said something he has not said, he has a cause of action to sue me in the civil court, and possible also a case under section 499/500 IPC to prosecute me in the criminal court.
Hi Kenneth, Seriously, looking at the backlog of the civil and criminal court proceedings it would take years for any resolution to come.
I know of a neighbor who had to go for 20 years (rent-landlord issue).
The case was pretty straight and if the judge had wanted it could have had been over in 3 hearings (at the most 3 months) but it dragged on for over 10 years.
Also the victim would have to pay legal fees and stuff. Even after the neighbor won the case he was not compensated (for lawyer and various expenses) by the losing party.
So from my perspective going to law is maybe the last resort thing.
It works but works only in high-profile cases where agreements are hashed out.
Some real-life experiences
http://blog.twilightfairy.in/2008/09/01/toi-believes-flickr-is-for-flicking/
<snip>
-- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Associate NRC-FOSS http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/ -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
On Monday 12 January 2009 23:46, Atanu Datta wrote:
On Mon, January 12, 2009 11:20 pm, Rony said:
Philip Tellis wrote:
why license at all?
IIRC, all mails to this list are in the Public Domain. I believe that was always the intent - at least as far back as I can remember. Perhaps we should make this explicit in the guidelines so that people who don't like that can refrain from mailing the list.
Just want to mention my experience with messages on this list. I had written a mail about an issue of LFY and it included a balanced view. In the next month's issue I find my message on this list being printed in the letters section and they neatly assembled only those lines that were positive about LFY. All this without my knowledge of the same.
Regret that permission was not taken from you in addition to you not being notified about it. If you could direct me to the mail (from the mailing list archives) and the issue of LFY where it was published, it'd help me review that matter.
Dont tell me your editors dont know anything about attributions and copyright. If they quote partly, especially without permission they should point out the source.
On Tue, January 13, 2009 3:23 pm, jtd said:
On Monday 12 January 2009 23:46, Atanu Datta wrote:
On Mon, January 12, 2009 11:20 pm, Rony said:
Philip Tellis wrote:
why license at all?
IIRC, all mails to this list are in the Public Domain. I believe that was always the intent - at least as far back as I can remember. Perhaps we should make this explicit in the guidelines so that people who don't like that can refrain from mailing the list.
Just want to mention my experience with messages on this list. I had written a mail about an issue of LFY and it included a balanced view. In the next month's issue I find my message on this list being printed in the letters section and they neatly assembled only those lines that were positive about LFY. All this without my knowledge of the same.
Regret that permission was not taken from you in addition to you not being notified about it. If you could direct me to the mail (from the mailing list archives) and the issue of LFY where it was published, it'd help me review that matter.
Dont tell me your editors dont know anything about attributions and copyright. If they quote partly, especially without permission they should point out the source.
Quoting someone automatically becomes an attribution, otherwise it's not a quote at all. So, when you quote someone in a story/article for something those words which form an option is attributed to the person who said it. Quoting someone also needs a journalist to ask for permission. However, if it's already published somewhere, you can simply point to the source, which is what happened in this case.
Here, the quote is w.r.t to a comment on the mailing list. And I'm sure it was pointed out from where the comment was picked up. Of course, I can't recall everything from the top of my head as to when was it was we quoted Rony, what all he had said and which parts we quoted in the feedback section, etc. We typically deal with 60,000 words in a typical magazine issue per month. So, it's hard to recall what was the source for 20 words out of it. Of course, if we've quoted Rony I can bet that we did attribute that was a comment in the iLUG-BOM mailing list by such and such person. That's we, as journalists, need to do. If you think we've done something that doesn't fall under proper journalistic practices, you can go ask anyone from NYT, Guardian, or any other media company that you think abides to a proper journalistic procedure.
So, before you jump the guns, do read the question I've asked Rony again.
Thanks, Atanu
On Tuesday 13 January 2009 15:57, Atanu Datta wrote:
On Tue, January 13, 2009 3:23 pm, jtd said:
On Monday 12 January 2009 23:46, Atanu Datta wrote:
On Mon, January 12, 2009 11:20 pm, Rony said:
Philip Tellis wrote:
> why license at all?
IIRC, all mails to this list are in the Public Domain. I believe that was always the intent - at least as far back as I can remember. Perhaps we should make this explicit in the guidelines so that people who don't like that can refrain from mailing the list.
Just want to mention my experience with messages on this list. I had written a mail about an issue of LFY and it included a balanced view. In the next month's issue I find my message on this list being printed in the letters section and they neatly assembled only those lines that were positive about LFY. All this without my knowledge of the same.
Regret that permission was not taken from you in addition to you not being notified about it. If you could direct me to the mail (from the mailing list archives) and the issue of LFY where it was published, it'd help me review that matter.
Dont tell me your editors dont know anything about attributions and copyright. If they quote partly, especially without permission they should point out the source.
Quoting someone automatically becomes an attribution,
What do you mean "automatically"?. You mean the article has comments scrapped from the web without human intervention.
otherwise it's not a quote at all. So, when you quote someone in a story/article for something those words which form an option is attributed to the person who said it. Quoting someone also needs a journalist to ask for permission. However, if it's already published somewhere, you can simply point to the source, which is what happened in this case.
Afaik there was no reference to the source. (http://ilug-bom...whatever) at best there was afair a reference to Rony Bill in the Mumbal lug (as you probably correctly point out), implying that he said that the product was very good, whereas in fact he was saying exactly the opposite, which you make no metion of.
If you think we've done something that doesn't fall under proper journalistic practices, you can go ask anyone from NYT, Guardian, or any other media company that you think abides to a proper journalistic procedure.
I do read those and i dare say you guys have a loooooong way to go on all counts. Well at least you aim high. But long before you achieve those standards you need to have the guts to print the comments that show what readers think about you. Quoting half of somenone's statement to imply exactly the opposite of what he said is dishonesty my dear fellow. The question of attribs and copyright stem from the fact that your eds did something, that to us smacks of dishonesty.
anyway lets see if this one also is so much water on a ducks back.
So, before you jump the guns, do read the question I've asked Rony again.
Thanks, Atanu
On Tue, January 13, 2009 4:34 pm, jtd said:
On Tuesday 13 January 2009 15:57, Atanu Datta wrote:
On Tue, January 13, 2009 3:23 pm, jtd said:
On Monday 12 January 2009 23:46, Atanu Datta wrote:
On Mon, January 12, 2009 11:20 pm, Rony said:
Philip Tellis wrote:
>> why license at all?
IIRC, all mails to this list are in the Public Domain. I believe that was always the intent - at least as far back as I can remember. Perhaps we should make this explicit in the guidelines so that people who don't like that can refrain from mailing the list.
Just want to mention my experience with messages on this list. I had written a mail about an issue of LFY and it included a balanced view. In the next month's issue I find my message on this list being printed in the letters section and they neatly assembled only those lines that were positive about LFY. All this without my knowledge of the same.
Regret that permission was not taken from you in addition to you not being notified about it. If you could direct me to the mail (from the mailing list archives) and the issue of LFY where it was published, it'd help me review that matter.
Dont tell me your editors dont know anything about attributions and copyright. If they quote partly, especially without permission they should point out the source.
Quoting someone automatically becomes an attribution,
What do you mean "automatically"?. You mean the article has comments scrapped from the web without human intervention.
Yes, exactly. So, you see online articles from The Register, Inquirer, news.com, Znet, etc., that frequently quote statements made in the public by a such an such person published in some other media. That's attribution.
otherwise it's not a quote at all. So, when you quote someone in a story/article for something those words which form an option is attributed to the person who said it. Quoting someone also needs a journalist to ask for permission. However, if it's already published somewhere, you can simply point to the source, which is what happened in this case.
Afaik there was no reference to the source. (http://ilug-bom...whatever) at best there was afair a reference to Rony Bill in the Mumbal lug (as you probably correctly point out), implying that he said that the product was very good, whereas in fact he was saying exactly the opposite, which you make no metion of.
So, I ask again: Can I be pointed at the mail so that I can analyse the matter? Or is it asking too much? If there's any issue, I am ready to own up in public here. Savvy?
If you think we've done something that doesn't fall under proper journalistic practices, you can go ask anyone from NYT, Guardian, or any other media company that you think abides to a proper journalistic procedure.
I do read those and i dare say you guys have a loooooong way to go on all counts. Well at least you aim high. But long before you achieve those standards you need to have the guts to print the comments that show what readers think about you.
lol!! We're not trying to be an NYT or a Guardian. So, you got our aim totally wrong. Aim is to provide a medium to Indians or otherwise who'd want to share some info with the readers. The deal is simple: authors get paid (if they think the payment is not substantial, they can chose not to write also, we're not forcing anyone) and we compile and publish a mag and try and earn some profits that pays the staff's salaries.
Besides, the articles are licensed under CC-by-SA (unlike most other media companies, who sit on the material thinking it's *their* IP), so that those who are willing can extend/update the info published.
Quoting half of somenone's statement to imply exactly the opposite of what he said is dishonesty my dear fellow. The question of attribs and copyright stem from the fact that your eds did something, that to us smacks of dishonesty.
Again, I need to analyse the source. Can I be provided the info that I asked for in the first mail?
anyway lets see if this one also is so much water on a ducks back.
Whatever you mean by this statement...
Best, Atanu
On Tuesday 13 January 2009 17:02, Atanu Datta wrote:
Quoting someone automatically becomes an attribution,
What do you mean "automatically"?. You mean the article has comments scrapped from the web without human intervention.
Yes, exactly. So, you see online articles from The Register, Inquirer, news.com, Znet, etc., that frequently quote statements made in the public by a such an such person published in some other media. That's attribution.
Neat how do explain the truncation.
otherwise it's not a quote at all. So, when you quote someone in a story/article for something those words which form an option is attributed to the person who said it. Quoting someone also needs a journalist to ask for permission. However, if it's already published somewhere, you can simply point to the source, which is what happened in this case.
Afaik there was no reference to the source. (http://ilug-bom...whatever) at best there was afair a reference to Rony Bill in the Mumbal lug (as you probably correctly point out), implying that he said that the product was very good, whereas in fact he was saying exactly the opposite, which you make no metion of.
So, I ask again: Can I be pointed at the mail so that I can analyse the matter? Or is it asking too much? If there's any issue, I am ready to own up in public here. Savvy?
Google Rony Bill LFY ilug-bom
If you think we've done something that doesn't fall under proper journalistic practices, you can go ask anyone from NYT, Guardian, or any other media company that you think abides to a proper journalistic procedure.
I do read those and i dare say you guys have a loooooong way to go on all counts. Well at least you aim high. But long before you achieve those standards you need to have the guts to print the comments that show what readers think about you.
lol!! We're not trying to be an NYT or a Guardian. So, you got our aim totally wrong.
Heck nothing wrong in aiming high in comparison to being aimless.
anyway lets see if this one also is so much water on a ducks back.
Whatever you mean by this statement...
EFY / LFY does not seem to change.
On Tue, January 13, 2009 5:21 pm, jtd said:
On Tuesday 13 January 2009 17:02, Atanu Datta wrote:
Quoting someone automatically becomes an attribution,
What do you mean "automatically"?. You mean the article has comments scrapped from the web without human intervention.
Yes, exactly. So, you see online articles from The Register, Inquirer, news.com, Znet, etc., that frequently quote statements made in the public by a such an such person published in some other media. That's attribution.
Neat how do explain the truncation.
The readers can go and read the source, that's the whole purpose of providing a source. duh!
otherwise it's not a quote at all. So, when you quote someone in a story/article for something those words which form an option is attributed to the person who said it. Quoting someone also needs a journalist to ask for permission. However, if it's already published somewhere, you can simply point to the source, which is what happened in this case.
Afaik there was no reference to the source. (http://ilug-bom...whatever) at best there was afair a reference to Rony Bill in the Mumbal lug (as you probably correctly point out), implying that he said that the product was very good, whereas in fact he was saying exactly the opposite, which you make no metion of.
So, I ask again: Can I be pointed at the mail so that I can analyse the matter? Or is it asking too much? If there's any issue, I am ready to own up in public here. Savvy?
Google Rony Bill LFY ilug-bom
Thanks! So, here's the full text:
This month's LFY has the Mandriva 2009 distro DVD plus another DVD that has more than 200 Free Software for Windows. The magazine too has some nice articles. I liked the one that explains GRUB in detail. The DVD packaging is good. LFY's getting more and more interesting.
From: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.user-groups.linux.mumbai/28730
That's the whole post... and I believe it was published in its entirety. I wonder what negative aspects about LFY from the comment have we truncated.
If you think we've done something that doesn't fall under proper journalistic practices, you can go ask anyone from NYT, Guardian, or any other media company that you think abides to a proper journalistic procedure.
I do read those and i dare say you guys have a loooooong way to go on all counts. Well at least you aim high. But long before you achieve those standards you need to have the guts to print the comments that show what readers think about you.
lol!! We're not trying to be an NYT or a Guardian. So, you got our aim totally wrong.
Heck nothing wrong in aiming high in comparison to being aimless.
And how do you explain truncation here?
anyway lets see if this one also is so much water on a ducks back.
Whatever you mean by this statement...
EFY / LFY does not seem to change.
lol!! You needn't have explained that statement. Should learn how to read between the lines.
Best, Atanu
Reply in-line :-
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 17:02, Atanu Datta lfyedit2@efyindia.com wrote:
<snip>
Yes, exactly. So, you see online articles from The Register, Inquirer, news.com, Znet, etc., that frequently quote statements made in the public by a such an such person published in some other media. That's attribution.
Hi all,
I know very little but lemme use three websites which I feel are pretty good in giving quotes/sources of things.
a. http://lwn.net b. http://www.phoronix.com c. http://en.wikipedia.org
You will see that almost all the articles would give a hyperlink or cite the source in its entirety.
While one can say they are an online medium but good magazines do take care to give hyperlinks as and where possible.
As was pointed out, it just took 4 keywords to know the original post.
otherwise it's not a quote at all. So, when you quote someone in a story/article for something those words which form an option is attributed to the person who said it. Quoting someone also needs a journalist to ask for permission. However, if it's already published somewhere, you can simply point to the source, which is what happened in this case.
Afaik there was no reference to the source. (http://ilug-bom...whatever) at best there was afair a reference to Rony Bill in the Mumbal lug (as you probably correctly point out), implying that he said that the product was very good, whereas in fact he was saying exactly the opposite, which you make no metion of.
So, I ask again: Can I be pointed at the mail so that I can analyse the matter? Or is it asking too much? If there's any issue, I am ready to own up in public here. Savvy?
If you think we've done something that doesn't fall under proper journalistic practices, you can go ask anyone from NYT, Guardian, or any other media company that you think abides to a proper journalistic procedure.
I do read those and i dare say you guys have a loooooong way to go on all counts. Well at least you aim high. But long before you achieve those standards you need to have the guts to print the comments that show what readers think about you.
lol!! We're not trying to be an NYT or a Guardian. So, you got our aim totally wrong. Aim is to provide a medium to Indians or otherwise who'd want to share some info with the readers. The deal is simple: authors get paid (if they think the payment is not substantial, they can chose not to write also, we're not forcing anyone) and we compile and publish a mag and try and earn some profits that pays the staff's salaries.
Besides, the articles are licensed under CC-by-SA (unlike most other media companies, who sit on the material thinking it's *their* IP), so that those who are willing can extend/update the info published.
Lemme take this opportunity to give another insight or angle on things. Frankly, I haven't seen this happening. Its one thing to say the articles are CC-by-SA and one thing to actually give space so others can read the article.
I had spoken in number of emails since 2006 asking LFY why couldn't they reproduce the article in an online format after the month is over and till date I haven't been able to see that happen.
For e.g. look at December's issue.
http://lfymag.com/archives.asp?author=Select+Author&month=12&year=20...
I don't see any articles which I can read therein. There is of course the way (for e.g. Frederick and Niyam have their own sites) but what about other authors who don't have the time or the inclination or the space to do the same.
Contrast this with the way http://lwn.net runs.
They have articles which are paid for a week and then its in public domain. This is something that LFY should strive to do. And I don't think we as reading public would be averse to having a few ads done discreetly if that is what is needed to make it self-sustaining (as lwn.net)
As I see this would give longevity to the articles and lot of IP/ideas/procedures/packages which otherwise would perhaps not survive.
Atanu, what do you say?
<snip>
Best, Atanu
On Tue, January 13, 2009 9:07 pm, shirish said:
Reply in-line :-
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 17:02, Atanu Datta lfyedit2@efyindia.com wrote:
<snip>
Yes, exactly. So, you see online articles from The Register, Inquirer, news.com, Znet, etc., that frequently quote statements made in the public by a such an such person published in some other media. That's attribution.
Hi all,
I know very little but lemme use three websites which I feel are pretty good in giving quotes/sources of things.
a. http://lwn.net b. http://www.phoronix.com c. http://en.wikipedia.org
You will see that almost all the articles would give a hyperlink or cite the source in its entirety.
While one can say they are an online medium but good magazines do take care to give hyperlinks as and where possible.
Point taken and I completely agree! :-)
As was pointed out, it just took 4 keywords to know the original post.
otherwise it's not a quote at all. So, when you quote someone in a story/article for something those words which form an option is attributed to the person who said it. Quoting someone also needs a journalist to ask for permission. However, if it's already published somewhere, you can simply point to the source, which is what happened in this case.
Afaik there was no reference to the source. (http://ilug-bom...whatever) at best there was afair a reference to Rony Bill in the Mumbal lug (as you probably correctly point out), implying that he said that the product was very good, whereas in fact he was saying exactly the opposite, which you make no metion of.
So, I ask again: Can I be pointed at the mail so that I can analyse the matter? Or is it asking too much? If there's any issue, I am ready to own up in public here. Savvy?
If you think we've done something that doesn't fall under proper journalistic practices, you can go ask anyone from NYT, Guardian, or any other media company that you think abides to a proper journalistic procedure.
I do read those and i dare say you guys have a loooooong way to go on all counts. Well at least you aim high. But long before you achieve those standards you need to have the guts to print the comments that show what readers think about you.
lol!! We're not trying to be an NYT or a Guardian. So, you got our aim totally wrong. Aim is to provide a medium to Indians or otherwise who'd want to share some info with the readers. The deal is simple: authors get paid (if they think the payment is not substantial, they can chose not to write also, we're not forcing anyone) and we compile and publish a mag and try and earn some profits that pays the staff's salaries.
Besides, the articles are licensed under CC-by-SA (unlike most other media companies, who sit on the material thinking it's *their* IP), so that those who are willing can extend/update the info published.
Lemme take this opportunity to give another insight or angle on things. Frankly, I haven't seen this happening. Its one thing to say the articles are CC-by-SA and one thing to actually give space so others can read the article.
I had spoken in number of emails since 2006 asking LFY why couldn't they reproduce the article in an online format after the month is over and till date I haven't been able to see that happen.
For e.g. look at December's issue.
http://lfymag.com/archives.asp?author=Select+Author&month=12&year=20...
There's been some infrastructure problem. If you notice the LFY brochure site that you've pointed to is on ASP, because it's maintained and co-hosted by shared resources with the parent company, which is EFY.
The OpenITis.com site has been lying idle in alpha stage for a while now, due to resource constraints. However, the good news is, we now have a dedicated Web team again, with a background in social networking, so things should be up and running at linuxforu.com pretty soon. Of course, once the site is up and the articles are uploaded, the CC-by-SA licensing would make a whole lot of sense.
I don't see any articles which I can read therein. There is of course the way (for e.g. Frederick and Niyam have their own sites) but what about other authors who don't have the time or the inclination or the space to do the same.
Contrast this with the way http://lwn.net runs.
They have articles which are paid for a week and then its in public domain. This is something that LFY should strive to do. And I don't think we as reading public would be averse to having a few ads done discreetly if that is what is needed to make it self-sustaining (as lwn.net)
As I see this would give longevity to the articles and lot of IP/ideas/procedures/packages which otherwise would perhaps not survive.
Atanu, what do you say?
Point taken! I've been involved with the discussions about an online presence for a while now and guess things should start going online within a couple of months, if not sooner.
Best, Atanu
On Tuesday 13 January 2009 22:11, Atanu Datta wrote:
I had spoken in number of emails since 2006 asking LFY why couldn't they reproduce the article in an online format after the month is over and till date I haven't been able to see that happen.
For e.g. look at December's issue.
http://lfymag.com/archives.asp?author=Select+Author&month=12&year =2008&total=1&id=13&Submit=Search
There's been some infrastructure problem. If you notice the LFY brochure site that you've pointed to is on ASP, because it's maintained and co-hosted by shared resources with the parent company, which is EFY.
The OpenITis.com site has been lying idle in alpha stage for a while now, due to resource constraints. However, the good news is, we now have a dedicated Web team again, with a background in social networking, so things should be up and running at linuxforu.com pretty soon. Of course, once the site is up and the articles are uploaded, the CC-by-SA licensing would make a whole lot of sense.
I don't see any articles which I can read therein. There is of course the way (for e.g. Frederick and Niyam have their own sites) but what about other authors who don't have the time or the inclination or the space to do the same.
Contrast this with the way http://lwn.net runs.
They have articles which are paid for a week and then its in public domain. This is something that LFY should strive to do. And I don't think we as reading public would be averse to having a few ads done discreetly if that is what is needed to make it self-sustaining (as lwn.net)
As I see this would give longevity to the articles and lot of IP/ideas/procedures/packages which otherwise would perhaps not survive.
Atanu, what do you say?
Point taken! I've been involved with the discussions about an online presence for a while now and guess things should start going online within a couple of months, if not sooner.
Besides online adverts seem to be all the rage nowadays. You might be missing a major opportunity here. IMO the efy small ads section was useful to me several times. However nowadays i use google. If EFY / LFY does as suggested by Shirish, i am sure you have a revenue stream, far greater than the print version is ever going to generate.
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 2:10 PM, Philip Tellis philip.tellis@gmx.net wrote:
why license at all?
IIRC, all mails to this list are in the Public Domain. I believe that was always the intent - at least as far back as I can remember. Perhaps we should make this explicit in the guidelines so that people who don't like that can refrain from mailing the list.
That is great. How about putting it up where people can easily notice it? Maybe the About part on the mailman page for linuxers[1]?
1. http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
On Saturday 10 Jan 2009 11:41:06 pm Raj Mathur wrote:
There should be a blanket licence for all postings to the list, and if an individual contributor doesn't like that s/he is welcome to not post to the list at all. List admins?
omg raj mathur again - we do not need licenses for mailing lists.
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.orgwrote:
omg raj mathur again - we do not need licenses for mailing lists.
"We" == ? Let others speak for themselves please. And you did what you have been accusing others of - personal remarks! Double standards?
http://www.forumtopics.com/busobj/
This is one of the forums that I frequent. It runs on phpbb, has ~35k active users.
IMHO Vbulletin is popular since it has much better admin / moderation interface then phpbb.
Regards, Shamit
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 3:57 PM, shirish shirishag75@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all, I have seen international bulletin boards (forums to be more exact) using free software like phpbb, SMF (Simple Machines Forum) but most forums which are dedicated either tech or anything else most seem to go for a proprietary board like vbulletin .
Does anybody know of good boards which use any GPL/BSD or any soft or hard copyleft license .
I am looking for forums and boards where atleast 10-15 people are posting daily and it doesn't have to be tech. So any topic is ok.
Comments, ideas, suggestions welcome.
Regards, Shirish AgarwalThis email is licensed under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ http://flossexperiences.wordpress.com 065C 6D79 A68C E7EA 52B3 8D70 950D 53FB 729A 8B17 -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
-
Atanu Datta -
Dinesh Shah (દિન ેશ શાહ/द िनेश शाह) -
jtd -
Kartik Mistry -
Kenneth Gonsalves -
Mehul Ved -
Philip Tellis -
Prashant Verma -
Raj Mathur -
Ravindra Jaju -
Rony -
Saswata Banerjee -
Shamit Verma -
shirish