Author: Roger D Davis
Date: 15:54:02 09/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 09, 2003 at 03:02:06, Robin Smith wrote:
>On September 09, 2003 at 02:37:45, Roger D Davis wrote:
>
>>On September 08, 2003 at 20:40:07, Jeroen van Dorp wrote:
>>
>>>I have followed the discussion, and I have no particularly relevant opinion
>>>about programs like this deadking.
>>>
>>>But from the discussion I can conclude that the legal status of such a program
>>>is unclear. As a result you changed your opinion to "Let's ban these subjects
>>>because most people here don't like these kind of subjects". This has nothing to
>>>do with violating the charter, but with catering the majority (or maybe a
>>>minority - who knows) of posters.
>>>
>>>So from your own observation you can't conlude that it violates the charter, and
>>>given the many responses it's also hardly clear that these subjects are indeed
>>>unwanted here.
>>>
>>>Suddenly you leave the discussion, make a new top post and state that the
>>>subject is violating the charter.
>>>
>>>You may understand that although I have no thoughts about deadking, I _do_ have
>>>some thoughts about your way of handling this.
>>>
>>>Your claim of upholding the charter simply doesn't cause the subject to violate
>>>the charter.
>>>
>>>
>>>J.
>>
>>
>>Jeroen,
>>
>>You said, "from the discussion I can conclude that the legal status of such a
>>program is unclear." In other words, it's questionnable...which is the wording
>>of #5 of the charter... That means you have to support the moderator.
>>
>>Roger
>
>Roger,
>
>Supporting a moderator's ban of postings, and supporting a moderator's
>accusations of piracy ("if you are using deadking, you are using illegal
>software", "deadking is illegal software", etc.), are two different things. I
>use deadking with my legal copy of Chessmaseter, and I took offense at these
>statements. I don't enjoy, in essence, being called a thief for using something
>I paid for. Why is this so hard to understand?
I said simply that Jeroen should support a ban on the discussion if he supports
the charter. To me, point #5 of the charter is clear. Given that the purpose of
charters is to keep the hosting site out of legal problems, I think it's
important to respect the graciousness of those who host the site and steer clear
of anything which has some probability of producing legal problems. That's the
intent of "questionable legal status" as I read the charter.
Roger
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.