Alec Conroy wrote:
On 11/28/07, jayjg wrote:
She has, supposedly, threatened to sue the foundation for copyright violation is the email is published on-wiki, and that is a risk the foundation does not want to take.
Has she? I wasn't aware of that.
Yeah-- supposedly foundation employee Bastique removed the material based on Durova's copyright claims. If you were really crazy, you could say she never claimed copyright-- (Bastique was part of Durova's investigation list, so a cynic could say he did it as some sort of cover up-- but I'm not that cynical myself. I'm sure she really did assert copyright).
Besides, Durova has been repeatedly asked for permission to publish the email on wiki, and has yet to grant it-- forcing anyone who wants to speak intelligently about this subject to visit Wikitruth.
Framing this in terms of copyright violation is a red herring. You can't copyright facts, so rewording the facts would get around this. At the same time I don't see that naming names is that important. Durova should not be put into a position of being pressured to deal with conflicting ethics.
The principle that secret evidence should not be the basis for punishments is more important.
Ec