TO: t…@wes.on.ca
TH. This article is copyright 1990-1992 by Tom Haapanen. It may be freely
. copied and/or distributed in its entirety as long as this copyright
. notice is not removed. It may not be sold for profit or incorporated
. into commercial products without the author’s written permission.
Why do you think it necessary to "carpet-bomb" every Windows newsgroup
with this stuff? Don’t you think one would be sufficient? Too bad you
guys don’t have to pay for the bandwidth you waste with this stuff, no?
—
. KingQWK 1.05 # 97 . Yes, I’m *still* using WordStar. By choice.
In article <33.1100.uu…@satalink.com> john.w…@satalink.com (John Will) writes:
>TO: t…@wes.on.ca
>TH. This article is copyright 1990-1992 by Tom Haapanen. It may be freely
> . copied and/or distributed in its entirety as long as this copyright
> . notice is not removed. It may not be sold for profit or incorporated
> . into commercial products without the author’s written permission.
>Why do you think it necessary to "carpet-bomb" every Windows newsgroup
>with this stuff? Don’t you think one would be sufficient? Too bad you
>guys don’t have to pay for the bandwidth you waste with this stuff, no?
This is the second time that I’ve read negative criticizm against tom
because of his work on the FAQ, both here and in the programmers
newsgroup. I for one value his work, and would like to encourage him
to continue.
Second, any descent news software sends only one copy of an
article even if it has to go to multiple newsgroups, so this poster is
quite wrong about wasted bandwidth.
Finally, If Tom chooses to copyright his FAQ, I don’t see any harm.
Many things in the public domain are copyrighted, as is the FAQ. His
copyright is not restrictive.
Tom: keep up the good work!
cheers,
kartik
–
————————————————————————
Anant Kartik Mithal a…@cs.uoregon.edu
Network Manager, Phd Student (503)346-3989
Department of Computer Science, (503)346-5373 (fax)
In article <1992Jun6.044932.1…@cs.uoregon.edu>, a…@ilix.cs.uoregon.edu (Anant Kartik Mithal) writes:
> In article <33.1100.uu…@satalink.com> john.w…@satalink.com (John Will) writes:
>>TO: t…@wes.on.ca
>>TH. This article is copyright 1990-1992 by Tom Haapanen. It may be freely
>> . copied and/or distributed in its entirety as long as this copyright
>> . notice is not removed. It may not be sold for profit or incorporated
>> . into commercial products without the author’s written permission.
>>Why do you think it necessary to "carpet-bomb" every Windows newsgroup
>>with this stuff? Don’t you think one would be sufficient? Too bad you
>>guys don’t have to pay for the bandwidth you waste with this stuff, no?
> This is the second time that I’ve read negative criticizm against tom
> because of his work on the FAQ, both here and in the programmers
> newsgroup. I for one value his work, and would like to encourage him
> to continue.
Let me second that. I can only imagine the ‘wasted bandwidth’ we would
have without FAQs. We get enought already. Wading through all the
stuff on these newsgroups and condensing it has to be a whale of a job.
We should be encouraging Tom rather than being critical. I wonder..
Maybe John wants the job…. Nahhh
> Tom: keep up the good work!
> cheers,
> kartik
Right on. Let’s keep the volunteers happy!!
–
Mike Mattix
Agricultural Group of Monsanto
P.O. Box 174
Luling, LA 70070
INTERNET Address: dmm…@bigez.monsanto.com
In article <1992Jun6.044932.1…@cs.uoregon.edu> a…@ilix.cs.uoregon.edu (Anant Kartik Mithal) writes:
>Finally, If Tom chooses to copyright his FAQ, I don’t see any harm.
>Many things in the public domain are copyrighted, as is the FAQ. His
>copyright is not restrictive.
I agree with the first point, but the second sentence here is
completely wrong. If something is in the public domain, it is *by
definition* not copyrighted. Public domain means that all copyrights
have been given up.
There are definitely many "free" things that are copyrighted.
This really isn’t a flame. It is quite common for personal computer
users to misuse the term "Public Domain", though that doesn’t make it
right.
In article <1992Jun6.044932.1…@cs.uoregon.edu> a…@ilix.cs.uoregon.edu (Anant Kartik Mithal) writes:
>This is the second time that I’ve read negative criticizm against tom
>because of his work on the FAQ, both here and in the programmers
>newsgroup. I for one value his work, and would like to encourage him
>to continue.
Hear! Hear! (as opposed to Here! Here! 9-) )
People like Tom and the people at Cica have over the last two or three
years provided us Windows users with valuable services. We can’t thank
them enough. Perhaps someone should say it once in a while…
>Second, any descent news software sends only one copy of an
>article even if it has to go to multiple newsgroups, so this poster is
>quite wrong about wasted bandwidth.
This is very true. Moreover, once an article is marked as "read" in one
newsgroup it should also appear as "read" in any others to which it has
been cross-posted. Judicious cross-posting is very appropriate in many
cases.
–
——————————————————————————-
Iskandar Taib | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NT…@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU | Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet: NTAIB@IUBACS !
——————————————————————————-