FW: [Israel.pm] TK: what's the opposite of withdraw?
margol at beamartyr.net
Fri Apr 23 02:43:13 PDT 2004
Can we PLEASE not start another discussion on the definition of "stollen",
"illegal", "copyrighted", etc? IMHO we've worn the topic out, and as the
current list manager, Gabor has legitimately made a descision of certain
material regarding it's tolerance on this list. Call it what you want, just
don't post it. End of story.
Just my $0.02 - Please don't anyone take it personally, (I'm tired this
----- Original Message -----
From: "Shlomi Fish" <shlomif at iglu.org.il>
To: "Perl in Israel" <perl at perl.org.il>
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2004 12:29 PM
Subject: Re: FW: [Israel.pm] TK: what's the opposite of withdraw?
> On Friday 23 April 2004 14:52, Gabor Szabo wrote:
> > In a recent exchange of e-mail Shlomi Bakish posted a message
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > You need to use deiocnify and raise to show it.
> > > See more details:
> > > [a url deleted here]
> > Just a month ago we had a discussion about why it is not right
> > to point to places with stolen content.
> And in this discussion I mentioned the fact that media that was
> copied is not "stolen". I'm not saying it is right to illegitimately copy
> media. That may or may not be true (considering the first copy priniciple
> copyright law), but is besides the point. The point is that "stealing" or
> "theft" involves taking a material good (that obviously cannot be
> without permission. While in illegitimate copying the original copy of the
> data is preserved.
> Other than that, I fully support that we frown upon linking to online
> of books that were placed online without the permission of its publisher
> author, in this forum.
> Shlomi Fish
> Shlomi Fish shlomif at iglu.org.il
> Homepage: http://shlomif.il.eu.org/
> Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
> [Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.]
> Perl mailing list
> Perl at perl.org.il
More information about the Perl