Re: NATHAN and the FAQ Dilemna

[pubpc1@library.ucla.edu]

Warren Ernst wisely wrote:
>glyn@cs.ualberta.ca says...
>> Paul David Doherty <h0142kdd@joker.rz.hu-berlin.de> wrote:
>> >
>> >So, since Mr. Mates has never been appointed as the group's FAQ
>> >maintainer, it's not even necessary to formally relieve him of this
>> >burden.
>>
>> This is inaccurate in at least one respect:  Nathan is the only
>> person currently authorized to post the FAQ through the official
>> channels (ie: for news.answers et al).
>>
>
>Even that is debatable. I've actually been reading this newsgroup with
>keen interest, and have been e-mailing the maintainer of THAT group's
>FAQ. Nathan's FAQ publishing routine violates several conventions
>concerning generally open access, and periodic posting to this
>newsgroup.

So FAQ publishing _does_ have usenet conventions, unlike what Nate
claims!

>In order or be distrubuted on news.answers et all, a plain text version
>of the FAQ should be periodically posted IN THIS NEWSGROUP IN ITS
>ENTIRETY. It should also be freely available in an archive like
>rtmf.mit.edu or similar location. Both of these conditions are not
>currently being met.

Indeed, they are not being met.

>As such, in my mind, these documents are "Nathan's FAQs" and not C.S.A2
>faqs. A fine distinction, and I personally don't mind if these documents
>are renamed "Nathan's FAQ" if policies aren't changed.

Same here.  I don't agree with what Nate is doing, but I also do not
dispute his right to copyright it, deplorable as it is to restrict
distribution.

Note that even though I won't contest his right to do this, there is
still a gray area in U.S. law.  For example, take Denney's restaraunt.
There have been cases where they refused service to minorities, namely
the case involving blacks and the one involving asians.  Denney's owns
the property that their restaurants operate in.  There is no dispute
about that.  But can Denney's legally, under U.S. anti-discrimination
laws, restrict the distribution of their services?  Not according to
the courts.  Similarly, can hate groups publish literature and say
"we hereby, under U.S. copyright law, prevent blacks, jews, asians,
and other non-whites from reading this"?  Let's suppose the Simon-
Weisenthal center or the NAACP then goes on television, exposing the
hate groups' literature?  Can the hate groups then sue for breach of
copyright?  I don't think so.

>But to call them CSA2 Faqs and then limit their availability is just
>wrong.
>
>Virtually,
>Warr
>former Beagle Bros tech support

Finally, a good developer crosses the line and speaks out.  I agree
with you that given what is being restricted is just a FAQ, Nate should
be left to do what he pleases with his copyrighted work.  The
information that he is violating usenet convention is good to know.

Stay tuned for the release of the _CSA2_ Concise FAQ!  :)

Warren, I checked the Windows NT distribution boxes in two different
stores and they still seem to support PowerPC versions.

-Scott G.