Copyright Theft (was Re: # and believe me, Perl is still alive... still alive!...)
zzbbyy at gmail.com
Wed Dec 10 14:55:10 GMT 2008
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Jonathan Stowe
<jns at integration-house.com> wrote:
> 2008/12/10 Paul Makepeace <paulm at paulm.com>:
>> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Aaron Trevena <aaron.trevena at gmail.com>wrote:
>>> 2008/12/10 Paul Orrock <paulo at digitalcraftsmen.net>:
>>> > 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
>>> > 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
>> 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
Frankly I did not check it - it was just the first link when googling
for Perl Programming that I could find the quote that I needed. I
have never seen a similar case.
I hope that explains the circumstances.
More information about the london.pm