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