Subject:
Re: Wiki Conversion Process
From:
Paul Hendricksen ####@####.####
Date:
9 Jan 2013 04:48:33 +0000
Message-Id: <-6718102460381161452@unknownmsgid>
Within this logic, I'd assume that the website having been grounded
and no longer existed would infringe upon the authors rights.
There is no problem migrating the EXACT content to a different format.
That same format is put into printed text (FOR PROFIT) as mentioned
before in this same discussion.
Lets migrate the data. The articles deserve a better home, we can we
leave a "link to the old site" for a feel good factor.
V/R,
Paul Hendricksen
On Jan 8, 2013, at 6:01 PM, Jimmy Hess ####@####.#### wrote:
> On 1/8/13, Roger ####@####.#### wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 11:47:19PM +0200, Wesley Werner wrote:
>> See the Domain registrant.
>> I'm no lawyer, but have some experience with law within the US.
>
> You know what I would say about it... either find a Lawyer, to
> provide input, or at least,
> assume the risk does exist, and take an accordingly maximal
> conservative approach.
> Being overly cautious has less downsides than leaping through the darkness.
>
>> 1) There's profit involved, and TLDP has none that I know of from the
>> documents and from what was recently discussed within the past week;
>
> The same cannot necessarily be said about all consumers of TLDP
> documents, eg OS vendor who might like to include TLDP documents as
> supplementary files in commercial open source software distributions
> for customers' convenience, who might in theory like to point the
> finger back at the TLDP or individuals involved: in the unlikely event
> of an alleged infringement.
>
>> 2) There's some
>> sort of damage or injury, or reasonable belief harm can be done etc, and there
>
> Yes, but that's a fairly low barrier for anyone interested to cross.
>
>> within the same domain. Although I'm no lawyer, I don't see a need to even
>> contact an author, aside from maybe pushing a public notice to the website
>> and maybe mailing list.
>
> Perhaps it is the courteous thing to do; if there was not a prior
> understanding, about whatever changes would be made to their
> document.
>
> Perhaps, as authors, they are owed that much, morally.
>
> Perhaps, the very first thing to do, if you actually don't want
> lawyers to be involved, is:
> ensure not to treat authors inequitably, unfairly, or in such manner
> as makes anyone upset -- make sure the authors are informed of what
> you are doing, and given the opportunity to object, without lawyers
>
>
>> You're just looking for problems if you send an emai
>> to every author's private corporate email address, whom submitted documentation
>> in their free time - separate from work. ;-) (I think most lawyers would
>> agree with my last comment here.)
>
> If they did not intend to be contacted: possibly, they would not have put
> that e-mail address in the document.
>
> Or perhaps a note needs to be made in the document that the e-mail
> address no longer works, or the author now wants to be contacted at
> (new address)
> or not at all.
>
>
> --
> -JH
>
> ______________________
> http://lists.tldp.org/
>
