Home page logo
/

fulldisclosure logo Full Disclosure mailing list archives

Copyright Notices
From: full-disclosure () lists netsys com (HggdH)
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 20:52:22 -0600

Might be a good idea, given what is going on. I am unsure on the
restriction, anyway "(...may not...used for any commercial...).

It is obvious all vendors follow BUGTRAQ, vul-watch, etc -- it would be
stupid not to. If I am a vendor, and someone posts a vulnerability on my
product together with such a restriction, this would put me in a dilema: if
I do not use it, I maintain my product vulnerable; if I use it, I will have
to pay someone to **allow me to correct my product**.

This sounds even more wrong than Symantec buying BUGTRAQ.

..hggdh..
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Cartwright" <johnc () grok org uk>
To: <johnc () grok org uk>
Cc: <full-disclosure () lists netsys com>
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 18:24
Subject: [Full-disclosure] Copyright Notices


Hi

Some interesting debate about the whole copyright issue going on...

We were wondering about appending some kind of statement to posts to
back up these points. IANAL, but what do you think of a statement such
as this:

"The above post and all elements thereof are copyrighted by the poster,
and may not be reproduced or used for any commercial purpose without
the express permission of the author, unless specified otherwise."

Obviously by posting you have to agree that
a) Other members might quote what you said in *their* posts.
b) It will all end up in the list archives.

Alternatively we could spell out the situation in the list charter and
point to it in the footer to save room.

We'd welcome your comments.
- John
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Full-Disclosure () lists netsys com
http://lists.netsys.com/mailman/listinfo/full-disclosure



  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]