On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 08:43:29 +0000, Tim Smith wrote:
> In article <pan.2006.06.12.19.01.58.444966@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, flatfish+++
> wrote:
>> My point is that the behavior is unethical and that very few of the Linux
>> advocates will admit it but instead prefer to defend Roy which in and of
>> itself says a lot about their character as well.
>
> Right. He's how this whole thing would have played out if everyone involved
> was ethical:
>
> 1. As soon as Erik pointed out the image, Roy would have removed it.
Only if he is or was infringing, and he stated early on he did not believe
he was. Our saying that he is does not actually make it true. Only the
creator or the material in question actually has any real rights in this
dispute.
If the owner of the material has not ordered him to remove it, and Roy
himself does not believe he is infringing (leaving aside for a moment
whether or not he might be), then why should he listen to Erik or flatfish
demanding he remove it?
>
> 2. The group could then debate whether Erik's posting about this, rather
> than notifying Roy privately, was within the bounds of gentlemanly behavior,
> or is simply the actions of a cad.
>
> Note that caddishness is not zero-sum. If the conclusion to #2 is that Erik
> should not have posted, that doesn't excuse Roy.
Perhaps not, but nor is that a justification for the other attacks made on
him, including those insinuations by flatfish that Roy's dissertaion might
be plaigarised.
A minor copyright infringement on a website does not equate with the
likelihood of risking the loss of his Ph.D if he's discovered to have
plaigarised some of its contents.
--
Kier
|
|
