Re: New FAQ sites? (was Re: Nathan does it again!)

[pfg@yallara.cs.rmit.EDU.AU (Paul Francis Gilbert)]

kdc@crafti.com.au (Kevin Noonan) writes:

>Rubywand (rubywand@swbell.net) wrote:

>>Implicit in being accepted as FAQ keeper is the requirement that one
>>guarantee that the FAQ's be readily available for downloading by any
>>Apple II user from an open, free site.

>Of course an even greater event ... that of pirating software goes
>largely ignored by you.

>Mr Turley (he of the fake PhD)  and all your mindless drones please cease
>pirating software and then Nathan would have no concerns about Mr Turley
>(he of the fake PhD).

>Kevin Noonan
>kdc@crafti.com.au
>gswombat@delphi.com

>Todays quote:
>A friend in need is a pest indeed

Yeh right. You actually believe that do you? Come on, so many people have
have spoken against that idiot in the past... do you really think that he'll
stop with just banning "the evil drug-user"... I sincerely doubt it. He'll
probably end up with a policy of banning the domain of anybody who happens to
piss him off it he isn't stopped.

Has anybody seen Groundhog day? That just popped to mind. "As long as that
groundhog keeps seeing his shadow, it's going to keep on being winter. He's
got to be stopped. And I'm the one who's going to stop him." ;-)

After all, Mr Mates didn't seem to feel any compunctions about banning the
entire execpc.com site, despite the fact that I understand there are several
//e users on that site that aren't even remotely connected to Dr Tom (it
servers the entire state [as a previous post mentioned]. Did Nathan have any
compunctions about cutting their access just because they live in the same
state as Tom? I doubt it. So what makes you think he isn't going to do the
same thing again and again in the future.

I was actually wondering. From what I gather, Nathan, when he become the
site maintiner, inherited a large body of information. So therefore he can't
copyright that as his own work. Plus, any physical details about the Apple//
can't be copyrighted by him, since it's already copyrighted by Apple (he
may copyrighted any special formatting and tabling, but not the actual data).
So, how much of the FAQ is actually his own copyrighted work? Would it be
too difficult for someone to work out his added work and start a new FAQ?

Perhaps have a CFV for removing Nathan as FAQ maintainer and appoint someone
else? That way he would be free to maintain his Apple information and ban
access to anyone he wanted too, while the rest of us could finally just
ignore him.



--
Paul Gilbert           | pfg@yallara.cs.rmit.edu.au
Bach App Sci, Bach Eng | The opinions expressed are my own, all my own, and
Year 4, RMIT Melbourne | as such will contain no references to small furry
Australia	       | creatures from Alpha Centauri.