|No such thing as a small change
Who owns your words? A resolution is needed.by kudra (Vicar)
|on Nov 13, 2000 at 21:14 UTC
The question of under what conditions words should be repeated has come up several times that I can remember:
I have two concerns with the reposting of information: context and the potential to modify someone's voice. The first point I already covered in the June conversation. As for the second, I don't believe at all that anyone has acted in the past with malicious intent, but I do see it as a possibility when the words are posted under the control of someone other than the author.
I guess I actually have one more reservation: where the information is reposted. I've been involved in a few conversations about Deja's habit of repeating people's postings and making them available under different conditions than they were originally posted under. I'd be deeply disturbed if someone took my postings and charged people to read them, for example.
But I'd also rather not see things too restricted to the point where you can't make a copy of someone's post to keep for later reading.
For some people, what type of public the chatterbox is governs their behavior there, and also the question of whether they will even use it or not. For that reason, I think it would be best for the nature of the chatterbox to be clarified officially--one way or the other--to prevent any misunderstandings. Either everything said in the chatterbox--and the site--should be subject to reproduction, or there should be restrictions (only with the author's permission, or only on Perl Monks, or only as a paraphrase). The important thing is to decide so that we aren't all operating under different assumptions.