Copyright Theft (was Re: # and believe me, Perl is still alive... still alive!...)

Jonathan Stowe jns at
Wed Dec 10 14:36:16 GMT 2008

2008/12/10 Paul Makepeace <paulm at>:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Aaron Trevena <aaron.trevena at>wrote:
>> 2008/12/10 Paul Orrock <paulo at>:
>> > 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
>> > 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 to not realise it was obviously copyright
>> infringement).
> The opening line was "I'll put your attempt to get us to participate in
> copyright theft.." suggesting pre-meditation and malicious intent (which
> actually logically contradicts the perceived motivation expressed
> immediately afterwards but never mind that...), neither of which strikes me
> as particularly likely, and thus I think Paul's read is pretty fair.

So, we all think that a site with no O'Reilly branding and that is
CARRYING ADVERTS FOR PORN SITES could legitimately be mistaken for a
pukka site?  Yes I WAS implying that I believed he knew that it wasn't
a pukka site, but that being familiar with the established culture of
the community should have prevented him making the mistake of posting
the link here. But I was prepared to put that down to extenuating

> Let's just be nice, mm'kay?

"Nice" doesn't cut it: politeness - that is to say adhering to a set
of basic community norms and, if one doesn't understand those norms,
not making up a standard for yourself that is at conflict with them
and then getting the arse when called on it is the key.  Most of the
crap that we get in this list is completely down to people not being

And I said no arguing

More information about the mailing list