Dear Michael,
Thank you for clarifying. I put forth another email based on the expectation of the point you just made (so, thus, I am sorry for assuming you were speaking against the law and not in support of the license itself).
Sincerely, Jeffrey Peters aka Ottava Rima
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 7:56 PM, Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.net wrote:
Jeffrey Peters wrote:
Dear Michael,
I find it problematic that you suggest that yourself or the Foundation
would
speak out against this, when the law in question is about terminating the access to those who have been caught pirating material in violation of
set
copyright multiple times.
Jeffrey, it seems the underlying article has confused you about the relationship between the fundraising campaign and actual lawmaking. That's not entirely your fault, since the writer threw in some filler about the activity of an administrative agency, apparently because this tangent gave him an opportunity to link to his previous reporting. However, just because I would be willing to defend copyleft and support Creative Commons, it doesn't mean I have taken any position about a proposal, which is not yet law as far as I know, and apparently was not pushed in a strategic plan produced by an Obama administration executive, who is not an elected official and cannot legally accept contributions, but happened to produce this plan a day before the fundraising letter in question, which curiously does not say anything about what I have just mentioned except the first part involving copyleft and Creative Commons. I think the length of that sentence ought to illustrate just how tenuous the connection is.
--Michael Snow
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l