2 Feb
2010
2 Feb
'10
8:29 a.m.
On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:31:33 -0500, Ivica Ico Bukvic <ico(a)vt.edu> wrote:
Marc, this is a top priority matter. Could you please
look into t before
te end of the day?
Many thanks!
Ico
Michael Ost <most(a)museresearch.com> wrote:
>Hi Marc,
>
>Can you help me delete a post please? We are under threat of a lawsuit
>because of it, so I'm eager to get this resolved. Help?
>
>Cheers,
>
>Michael Ost
>
>Ivica Ico Bukvic wrote:
>> Michael,
>>
>> I am forwarding this to Marc who is in charge of mailing lists.
>>
>> Hope this helps!
>>
>> Marc, please see below.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Ivica Ico Bukvic, D.M.A.
>> Composition, Music Technology
>> Director, DISIS Interactive Sound & Intermedia Studio
>> Director, L2Ork Linux Laptop Orchestra
>> Assistant Co-Director, CCTAD
>> CHCI, CS, and Art (by courtesy)
>> Virginia Tech
>> Dept. of Music - 0240
>> Blacksburg, VA 24061
>> (540) 231-6139
>> (540) 231-5034 (fax)
>> ico(a)vt.edu
>> http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/bukvic/
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Michael Ost [mailto:most@museresearch.com]
>>> Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 1:20 PM
>>> To: Ivica Ico Bukvic
>>> Cc: Chris Halaby
>>> Subject: Problem post
>>>
>>> Ivica,
>>>
>>> I made a post to linux-audio-user in January 2007 ([linux-audio-user]
>>> iLok protection on Linux Wed Jan 10 15:22:48 EST 2007) that violates
an
>>> NDA that my company has with the copy
protection company, Pace AP.
>>>
>>> Would you be able to delete the post for me? I found instructions for
>>> how to do it with the mailman mailing list program here:
>>> http://wiki.list.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=4030681
>>>
>>> Thanks for your attention,
>>>
>>> Michael Ost
>>
>
Hello all,
Given the nature of this discussion, I am CCing the linux-audio-user
mailing list since this is about deleting legitimate content from the
archives because of a company that produces some of those shitty software
locks. I'm not gonna go easy on this.
First of all, let me remind you, and every linux-audio-user member out
there that the archives *ARE PUBLIC*, and thus what you post here will be
eventually readable by the *WHOLE WORLD*.
Read this again: the archives *ARE PUBLIC*, and thus what you post here
will be eventually readable by the *WHOLE WORLD*
Once more just to make sure: the archives *ARE PUBLIC*, and thus what you
post here will be eventually readable by the *WHOLE WORLD*
Deleting the post is not going to happen, I am only willing to censor the
one post that poses an issue provided the name of the company is mentioned
on a censor banner inside the post. The least we can do with such a case is
add a little public humiliation to this.
Also I would like to say that this is the one and only time that this
happens. Next time, the original poster will face the legal consequences. I
hope this is crystal clear to every one reading.
Just to make sure we are talking about the right post, is it this one ?
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-user/2007-January/041742.…
I will not even read a reply that does not include the linux-audio-user
list in CC.
Cheers,
--
Marc-Olivier Barre
XMPP ID : marco(a)marcochapeau.org
www.MarcOChapeau.org
2 Feb
2 Feb
8:40 a.m.
Wow, this seems like a fantastic idea if your goal is to scare the crap out
of the commercial manufacturing side of the digital audio world, cause
hesitation in further participation in the linux/open source community, and
get an individual contributor to the community fired from his job/sued.
Muse makes interesting, helpful products, has a lot of valuable IP invested
in computer audio production, and as a result of this exchange very likely
are about to institute a corporate policy dictating their employees never
contribute any of that knowledge to public forums such as this.
Nice work.
-----
Luke Peterson
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 7:29 AM, Marc-Olivier Barre
<marco(a)marcochapeau.org>wrote;wrote:
On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:31:33 -0500, Ivica Ico Bukvic
<ico(a)vt.edu> wrote:
Marc, this is a top priority matter. Could you
please look into t before
te end of the day?
Many thanks!
Ico
Michael Ost <most(a)museresearch.com> wrote:
>Hi Marc,
>
>Can you help me delete a post please? We are under threat of a lawsuit
>because of it, so I'm eager to get this resolved. Help?
>
>Cheers,
>
>Michael Ost
>
>Ivica Ico Bukvic wrote:
>> Michael,
>>
>> I am forwarding this to Marc who is in charge of mailing lists.
>>
>> Hope this helps!
>>
>> Marc, please see below.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Ivica Ico Bukvic, D.M.A.
>> Composition, Music Technology
>> Director, DISIS Interactive Sound & Intermedia Studio
>> Director, L2Ork Linux Laptop Orchestra
>> Assistant Co-Director, CCTAD
>> CHCI, CS, and Art (by courtesy)
>> Virginia Tech
>> Dept. of Music - 0240
>> Blacksburg, VA 24061
>> (540) 231-6139
>> (540) 231-5034 (fax)
>> ico(a)vt.edu
>> http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/bukvic/
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Michael Ost [mailto:most@museresearch.com]
>>> Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 1:20 PM
>>> To: Ivica Ico Bukvic
>>> Cc: Chris Halaby
>>> Subject: Problem post
>>>
>>> Ivica,
>>>
>>> I made a post to linux-audio-user in January 2007 ([linux-audio-user]
>>> iLok protection on Linux Wed Jan 10 15:22:48 EST 2007) that violates
an
>>> NDA that my company has with the copy
protection company, Pace AP.
>>>
>>> Would you be able to delete the post for me? I found instructions for
>>> how to do it with the mailman mailing list program here:
>>> http://wiki.list.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=4030681
>>>
>>> Thanks for your attention,
>>>
>>> Michael Ost
>>
>
Hello all,
Given the nature of this discussion, I am CCing the linux-audio-user
mailing list since this is about deleting legitimate content from the
archives because of a company that produces some of those shitty software
locks. I'm not gonna go easy on this.
First of all, let me remind you, and every linux-audio-user member out
there that the archives *ARE PUBLIC*, and thus what you post here will be
eventually readable by the *WHOLE WORLD*.
Read this again: the archives *ARE PUBLIC*, and thus what you post here
will be eventually readable by the *WHOLE WORLD*
Once more just to make sure: the archives *ARE PUBLIC*, and thus what you
post here will be eventually readable by the *WHOLE WORLD*
Deleting the post is not going to happen, I am only willing to censor the
one post that poses an issue provided the name of the company is mentioned
on a censor banner inside the post. The least we can do with such a case is
add a little public humiliation to this.
Also I would like to say that this is the one and only time that this
happens. Next time, the original poster will face the legal consequences. I
hope this is crystal clear to every one reading.
Just to make sure we are talking about the right post, is it this one ?
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-user/2007-January/041742.…
I will not even read a reply that does not include the linux-audio-user
list in CC.
Cheers,
--
Marc-Olivier Barre
XMPP ID : marco(a)marcochapeau.org
www.MarcOChapeau.org
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
9:17 a.m.
Luke Peterson <luke.peterson(a)gmail.com> writes:
Wow, this seems like a fantastic idea if your goal is
to scare the crap out
of the commercial manufacturing side of the digital audio world, cause
hesitation in further participation in the linux/open source community, and
get an individual contributor to the community fired from his job/sued.
Muse makes interesting, helpful products, has a lot of valuable IP invested
in computer audio production, and as a result of this exchange very likely
are about to institute a corporate policy dictating their employees never
contribute any of that knowledge to public forums such as this.
Posting to public list is posting to *public( list. Even censored in the
main archive, it will not be censored in other mirrors over the
network. Even if you manage track all public ones, you cannot do it for
the private ones (IMAP folders on people`s computers for example). So
instead of blaming Marc, you should value his will to censor that mail.
--
Nedko Arnaudov <GnuPG KeyID: DE1716B0>
9:17 a.m.
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 7:40 AM, Luke Peterson <luke.peterson(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Wow, this seems like a fantastic idea if your goal is
to scare the crap out
of the commercial manufacturing side of the digital audio world, cause
hesitation in further participation in the linux/open source community, and
get an individual contributor to the community fired from his job/sued.
Uhhh... this post is already archived by several hundred mailing list
mirrors LAU has no control over. Google has it fully indexed.
Removign the post from this specific list archive does not change one
iota any actionable breach of contract that has already occurred.
Also, censoring the list instantly makes the maintainers of the list
themselves legally actionable for content on the list, and does so to
no useful effect.
Monty
9:26 a.m.
On 02/02/2010, Monty Montgomery <xiphmont(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Removign the post from this specific list archive does
not change one
iota any actionable breach of contract that has already occurred.
But it might be enough to satisfy Pace's lawyers, which might mean
that Muse get to keep playing rather than being suffocated by lawyers'
fees defending a worthless suit.
Also, censoring the list instantly makes the
maintainers of the list
themselves legally actionable for content on the list, and does so to
no useful effect.
Good point, in two directions. Firstly, LAU isn't covered by Muse
Research's NDA, so it'd be safe here; there's not much Pace's lawyers
could do. Secondly, though, if someone were to write something
libellous, the group would be co-liable, having ditched its common
carrier status.
...In the US, anyway. In the UK, Godfrey v Demon Internet eliminated
the concept in 2001, so LAU is *already* liable there for libellous
statements. Combine that with a judge (J Eady) who's happy to accept
jurisdiction on the most tenuous grounds possible, and a set of
international agreements which render UK judgements binding on the
world stage - and be afraid...
9:38 a.m.
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 8:26 AM, Gwenhwyfaer <gwenhwyfaer(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/02/2010, Monty Montgomery
<xiphmont(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Perhaps... but I'm not used to lawyers being willfully oblivious when
they have a blood trail and a billable account.
Monty
Removign the post from this specific list archive
does not change one
iota any actionable breach of contract that has already occurred.
But it might be enough to satisfy Pace's lawyers, which might mean
that Muse get to keep playing rather than being suffocated by lawyers'
fees defending a worthless suit.
9:17 a.m.
On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:31:33 -0500, Ivica Ico Bukvic <ico(a)vt.edu> wrote:
Marc, this is a top priority matter. Could you please
look into t before
te end of the day?
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 7:29 AM, Marc-Olivier Barre wrote:
...
Deleting the post is not going to happen, I am only
willing to censor the
one post that poses an issue provided the name of the company is mentioned
on a censor banner inside the post. The least we can do with such a case
is add a little public humiliation to this.
Why do I get the sense that Marc's response isn't exactly what Ivica
had in mind here...?
*gets popcorn*
(For what it's worth, I believe Marc's made the wrong call here, in
this specific instance.)
9:56 a.m.
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 07:40:54 -0500, Luke Peterson <luke.peterson(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Wow, this seems like a fantastic idea if your goal is
to scare the crap
out
of the commercial manufacturing side of the digital
audio world, cause
hesitation in further participation in the linux/open source community,
and
get an individual contributor to the community fired
from his job/sued.
Muse makes interesting, helpful products, has a lot of valuable IP
invested
in computer audio production, and as a result of this
exchange very
likely
are about to institute a corporate policy dictating
their employees
never
contribute any of that knowledge to public forums such
as this.
Just to make this clear, I am not shooting at Muse, but at Pace, the
manufacturer of this so called iLok, which doesn't seem to be really
interested in free software anyways. And there obviously doesn't seem to be
any kind of "hesitation in further participation in the linux/open source
community" when the first thing you do is threaten someone of a lawsuit for
a post that *honestly doesn't contain any kind of useful intel*...
Reading the so called offending thread and not top-posting would help
before posting in this very interesting flamewar :D
--
Marc-Olivier Barre
XMPP ID : marco(a)marcochapeau.org
www.MarcOChapeau.org
2:46 p.m.
The censorship should have been performed by the original poster.
Also, legally, simply deleting the post wouldn't be sufficient, since
you don't know how many list members still have a copy of the original
email.
Deleting the post could ALSO be considered an effort to destroy evidence
and hide something illegal.
Luke Peterson wrote:
Wow, this seems like a fantastic idea if your goal is
to scare the crap
out of the commercial manufacturing side of the digital audio world,
cause hesitation in further participation in the linux/open source
community, and get an individual contributor to the community fired from
his job/sued.
Muse makes interesting, helpful products, has a lot of valuable IP
invested in computer audio production, and as a result of this exchange
very likely are about to institute a corporate policy dictating their
employees never contribute any of that knowledge to public forums such
as this.
Nice work.
-----
Luke Peterson
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 7:29 AM, Marc-Olivier Barre
<marco(a)marcochapeau.org <mailto:marco@marcochapeau.org>> wrote:
On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:31:33 -0500, Ivica Ico Bukvic <ico(a)vt.edu
<mailto:ico@vt.edu>> wrote:
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
Marc, this is a top priority matter. Could you
please look into t
before
te end of the day?
Many thanks!
Ico
Michael Ost <most(a)museresearch.com
<mailto:most@museresearch.com>>
wrote:
>Hi Marc,
>
>Can you help me delete a post please? We are under threat of a
lawsuit
>because of it, so I'm eager to get this
resolved. Help?
>
>Cheers,
>
>Michael Ost
>
>Ivica Ico Bukvic wrote:
>> Michael,
>>
>> I am forwarding this to Marc who is in charge of mailing lists.
>>
>> Hope this helps!
>>
>> Marc, please see below.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Ivica Ico Bukvic, D.M.A.
>> Composition, Music Technology
>> Director, DISIS Interactive Sound & Intermedia Studio
>> Director, L2Ork Linux Laptop Orchestra
>> Assistant Co-Director, CCTAD
>> CHCI, CS, and Art (by courtesy)
>> Virginia Tech
>> Dept. of Music - 0240
>> Blacksburg, VA 24061
>> (540) 231-6139
>> (540) 231-5034 (fax)
>> ico(a)vt.edu <mailto:ico@vt.edu>
>> http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/bukvic/
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Michael Ost [mailto:most@museresearch.com
<mailto:most@museresearch.com>]
>>> Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 1:20
PM
>>> To: Ivica Ico Bukvic
>>> Cc: Chris Halaby
>>> Subject: Problem post
>>>
>>> Ivica,
>>>
>>> I made a post to linux-audio-user in January 2007
([linux-audio-user]
>>> iLok protection on Linux Wed Jan 10
15:22:48 EST 2007) that
violates
an
>>> NDA that my company has with the copy
protection company, Pace AP.
>>>
>>> Would you be able to delete the post for me? I found
instructions
for
>>> how to do it with the mailman mailing
list program here:
>>> http://wiki.list.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=4030681
>>>
>>> Thanks for your attention,
>>>
>>> Michael Ost
>>
>
Hello all,
Given the nature of this discussion, I am CCing the linux-audio-user
mailing list since this is about deleting legitimate content from the
archives because of a company that produces some of those shitty
software
locks. I'm not gonna go easy on this.
First of all, let me remind you, and every linux-audio-user member out
there that the archives *ARE PUBLIC*, and thus what you post here
will be
eventually readable by the *WHOLE WORLD*.
Read this again: the archives *ARE PUBLIC*, and thus what you post here
will be eventually readable by the *WHOLE WORLD*
Once more just to make sure: the archives *ARE PUBLIC*, and thus
what you
post here will be eventually readable by the *WHOLE WORLD*
Deleting the post is not going to happen, I am only willing to
censor the
one post that poses an issue provided the name of the company is
mentioned
on a censor banner inside the post. The least we can do with such a
case is
add a little public humiliation to this.
Also I would like to say that this is the one and only time that this
happens. Next time, the original poster will face the legal
consequences. I
hope this is crystal clear to every one reading.
Just to make sure we are talking about the right post, is it this one ?
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-user/2007-January/041742.…
I will not even read a reply that does not include the linux-audio-user
list in CC.
Cheers,
--
Marc-Olivier Barre
XMPP ID : marco(a)marcochapeau.org <mailto:marco@marcochapeau.org>
www.MarcOChapeau.org <http://www.MarcOChapeau.org>
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
<mailto:Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org>
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user 
3 Feb
3 Feb
2:29 p.m.
New subject: SOLVED: CENSORING public archives (Was: Problem post)
Am 02.02.2010 um 13:40 schrieb Luke Peterson:
Wow, this seems like a fantastic idea if your goal is
to scare the
crap out of the commercial manufacturing side of the digital audio
world, cause hesitation in further participation in the linux/open
source community, and get an individual contributor to the community
fired from his job/sued.
Muse makes interesting, helpful products, has a lot of valuable IP
invested in computer audio production, and as a result of this
exchange very likely are about to institute a corporate policy
dictating their employees never contribute any of that knowledge to
public forums such as this.
Nice work.
Although I am totally with you on that the posting should be removed
from the official archive, which has happened by now, I can understand
the furor.
Being p###ed off by and avoiding NDAs is one of the founding myths of
the free software movement:
http://www.gnu.org/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt
You can easily find the famous "printer story" in the text by
searching it for "tym".
It's good to see Michael's problem solved.
- Burkhard
-----
Luke Peterson
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 7:29 AM, Marc-Olivier Barre <marco(a)marcochapeau.org
wrote:
On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:31:33 -0500,
Ivica Ico Bukvic <ico(a)vt.edu>
wrote:
Marc, this is a top priority matter. Could you
please look into t
before
te end of the day?
Many thanks!
Ico
Michael Ost <most(a)museresearch.com> wrote:
>Hi Marc,
>
>Can you help me delete a post please? We are under threat of a
lawsuit
>because of it, so I'm eager to get this
resolved. Help?
>
>Cheers,
>
>Michael Ost
>
>Ivica Ico Bukvic wrote:
>> Michael,
>>
>> I am forwarding this to Marc who is in charge of mailing lists.
>>
>> Hope this helps!
>>
>> Marc, please see below.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Ivica Ico Bukvic, D.M.A.
>> Composition, Music Technology
>> Director, DISIS Interactive Sound & Intermedia Studio
>> Director, L2Ork Linux Laptop Orchestra
>> Assistant Co-Director, CCTAD
>> CHCI, CS, and Art (by courtesy)
>> Virginia Tech
>> Dept. of Music - 0240
>> Blacksburg, VA 24061
>> (540) 231-6139
>> (540) 231-5034 (fax)
>> ico(a)vt.edu
>> http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/bukvic/
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Michael Ost [mailto:most@museresearch.com]
>>> Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 1:20 PM
>>> To: Ivica Ico Bukvic
>>> Cc: Chris Halaby
>>> Subject: Problem post
>>>
>>> Ivica,
>>>
>>> I made a post to linux-audio-user in January 2007 ([linux-audio-
user]
>>> iLok protection on Linux Wed Jan 10
15:22:48 EST 2007) that
violates
an
>>> NDA that my company has with the copy
protection company, Pace
AP.
>>>
>>> Would you be able to delete the post for me? I found
instructions
for
>>> how to do it with the mailman mailing
list program here:
>>> http://wiki.list.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=4030681
>>>
>>> Thanks for your attention,
>>>
>>> Michael Ost
>>
>
Hello all,
Given the nature of this discussion, I am CCing the linux-audio-user
mailing list since this is about deleting legitimate content from the
archives because of a company that produces some of those shitty
software
locks. I'm not gonna go easy on this.
First of all, let me remind you, and every linux-audio-user member out
there that the archives *ARE PUBLIC*, and thus what you post here
will be
eventually readable by the *WHOLE WORLD*.
Read this again: the archives *ARE PUBLIC*, and thus what you post
here
will be eventually readable by the *WHOLE WORLD*
Once more just to make sure: the archives *ARE PUBLIC*, and thus
what you
post here will be eventually readable by the *WHOLE WORLD*
Deleting the post is not going to happen, I am only willing to
censor the
one post that poses an issue provided the name of the company is
mentioned
on a censor banner inside the post. The least we can do with such a
case is
add a little public humiliation to this.
Also I would like to say that this is the one and only time that this
happens. Next time, the original poster will face the legal
consequences. I
hope this is crystal clear to every one reading.
Just to make sure we are talking about the right post, is it this
one ?
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-user/2007-January/041742.…
I will not even read a reply that does not include the linux-audio-
user
list in CC.
Cheers,
--
Marc-Olivier Barre
XMPP ID : marco(a)marcochapeau.org
www.MarcOChapeau.org
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user 
2 Feb
2 Feb
9:07 a.m.
On Tuesday 02 February 2010 13:29:05 Marc-Olivier Barre wrote:
First of all, let me remind you, and every
linux-audio-user member out
there that the archives *ARE PUBLIC*, and thus what you post here will be
eventually readable by the *WHOLE WORLD*.
Deleting the post is not going to happen, I am only willing to censor the
one post that poses an issue provided the name of the company is mentioned
on a censor banner inside the post. The least we can do with such a case is
add a little public humiliation to this.
Also I would like to say that this is the one and only time that this
happens. Next time, the original poster will face the legal consequences. I
hope this is crystal clear to every one reading.
I am mixed with this.
On one hand this is a _very_ good reminder for us people that this list is in
fact public and not controlled by the senders. Everything you write _will_
show up on the whole internet and will be pretty hard to suppress, its not
only these archives but also copies in search-engines caches and other web
archives... (Not even talking about peoples personal archive in their in-
boxes.)
On the other hand it might be that then lawyers come after you, Marc, or the
linux audio consortium as you are running the list and could therefore be
responsible for stuff published there. Even if we "sign" some paragraphs on
subscription to indemnify you in case of trouble, it could still be you who
gets the first letters from lawyers and you then have to sent your own lawyers
after us...
Unless this list runs on some anonymous server somewhere in the technology-
pendant of the third world and there are no names connected, I would follow
this bidding (and every following one when lawyers and technology are
involved) and only ask for some donations to either the linux audio consortium
for technical expenses or for charity projects.
Of course when people just want their own rude posts deleted, I would
definitely not do it.
Have fun,
Arnold
9:50 a.m.
On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 14:07:13 +0100, Arnold Krille <arnold(a)arnoldarts.de>
wrote:
is
On Tuesday 02 February 2010 13:29:05 Marc-Olivier
Barre wrote:
> First of all, let me remind you, and every linux-audio-user member out
> there that the archives *ARE PUBLIC*, and thus what you post here will
be
> eventually readable by the *WHOLE WORLD*.
>
> Deleting the post is not going to happen, I am only willing to censor
the
> one post that poses an issue provided the name of
the company is
> mentioned
> on a censor banner inside the post. The least we can do with such a
case
is
add a little public humiliation to this.
Also I would like to say that this is the one and only time that this
happens. Next time, the original poster will face the legal
consequences. I
hope this is crystal clear to every one reading.
I am mixed with this.
On one hand this is a _very_ good reminder for us people that this list in
fact public and not controlled by the senders. Everything you write
_will_
show up on the whole internet and will be pretty hard
to suppress, its
not
only these archives but also copies in search-engines
caches and other
web
archives... (Not even talking about peoples personal
archive in their
in-
boxes.)
Yup, I forgot to mention public copies of the archives in my post.
On the other hand it might be that then lawyers come
after you, Marc, or
the
linux audio consortium as you are running the list and could therefore
be
responsible for stuff published there. Even if we
"sign" some paragraphs
on
subscription to indemnify you in case of trouble, it could still be you
who
gets the first letters from lawyers and you then have to sent your own
lawyers
after us...
I don't know what the American laws have to say about this... IANAL
anyways...
Unless this list runs on some anonymous server
somewhere in the
technology-
pendant of the third world and there are no names
connected, I would
follow
this bidding (and every following one when lawyers and technology are
involved) and only ask for some donations to either the linux audio
consortium
for technical expenses or for charity projects.
I will follow the bidding. Just wanted to make the request and decision
public, and eventually start an interesting debate on this matter. Everyone
grab your pop corn :)
Of course when people just want their own rude posts
deleted, I would
definitely not do it.
Indeed.
Cheers,
--
Marc-Olivier Barre
XMPP ID : marco(a)marcochapeau.org
www.MarcOChapeau.org
10:29 a.m.
On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 14:07:13 +0100, Arnold Krille
<arnold(a)arnoldarts.de>
wrote:
is
As I see it, the NDA is between the OP and the company, if the OP
decides to talk to a third party, ie this list, then the the third
party cannot possibly be liable. It is the same as if the OP found a
random person on the street and talked to them, that random person
would also not be liable.
My 2c, Tim.
On Tuesday 02 February 2010 13:29:05 Marc-Olivier
Barre wrote:
> First of all, let me remind you, and every linux-audio-user
> member out
> there that the archives *ARE PUBLIC*, and thus what you post here
> will
be
> eventually readable by the *WHOLE WORLD*.
>
> Deleting the post is not going to happen, I am only willing to
> censor
the
> one post that poses an issue provided the
name of the company is
> mentioned
> on a censor banner inside the post. The least we can do with such
> a
case
is
add a little public humiliation to this.
Also I would like to say that this is the one and only time that
this
happens. Next time, the original poster will face the legal
consequences. I
hope this is crystal clear to every one reading.
I am mixed with this.
On one hand this is a _very_ good reminder for us people that this
list in
fact public and not controlled by the senders. Everything you
write
_will_
show up on the whole internet and will be pretty
hard to suppress,
its
not
only these archives but also copies in
search-engines caches and
other
web
archives... (Not even talking about peoples
personal archive in
their
in-
boxes.)
Yup, I forgot to mention public copies of the archives in my post.
On the other hand it might be that then lawyers
come after you,
Marc, or
the
linux audio consortium as you are running the list and could
therefore
be
responsible for stuff published there. Even if we
"sign" some
paragraphs
on
subscription to indemnify you in case of trouble, it could still
be you
who
gets the first letters from lawyers and you then have to sent your
own
lawyers
after us...
I don't know what the American laws have to say about this... IANAL
anyways...
Unless this list runs on some anonymous server
somewhere in the
technology-
pendant of the third world and there are no names
connected, I
would
follow
this bidding (and every following one when lawyers and technology
are
involved) and only ask for some donations to either the linux
audio
consortium
for technical expenses or for charity projects.
I will follow the bidding. Just wanted to make the request and
decision
public, and eventually start an interesting debate on this matter.
Everyone
grab your pop corn :)
Of course when people just want their own rude
posts deleted, I
would
definitely not do it.
Indeed.
Cheers,
--
Marc-Olivier Barre 
7:20 p.m.
Sorry, if I also chime in. But I have one question, perhaps it's stupid and
SHOULD result in RTFM, but I'm doing it anyway.
If I post something isn't it my material, of course given for the eyes of
all. So shouldn't I be able to change it - at least in the original archive?
In other forums - not mailing lists though - I saw the possibility to change
posts afterwards, mainly erase stuff. Then the post would have a note sticking
to it: "Changed X times."
It's a bit more than complete idle curiousity, yet only slightly. :-)
Kindest regards
Julien
--------
Music was my first love and it will be my last (John Miles)
======== FIND MY WEB-PROJECT AT: ========
http://ltsb.sourceforge.net
the Linux TextBased Studio guide
======= AND MY PERSONAL PAGES AT: =======
http://www.juliencoder.de
7:36 p.m.
New subject: Forum-like user edition of posts (Was: CENSORING public archives)
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 00:20:49 +0100 (CET), Julien Claassen <julien(a)c-lab.de>
wrote:
Sorry, if I also chime in. But I have one question,
perhaps it's stupid
and
SHOULD result in RTFM, but I'm doing it anyway.
If I post something isn't it my material, of course given for the
eyes
of
all. So shouldn't I be able to change it - at least in the original
archive?
In other forums - not mailing lists though - I saw the possibility to
change
posts afterwards, mainly erase stuff. Then the post would have a note
sticking
to it: "Changed X times."
It's a bit more than complete idle curiousity, yet only slightly. :-)
Kindest regards
Julien
Hi Julien,
Not a stupid question t all, and the so called "FM" will probably not
help you, at least not with Mailman 2:).
Mailman 3 on the other hand could introduce something like that. I am
going to test an alpha version soon for work because we might need some of
it's new features. And to be honest, while mailman 2 has great features,
it also sometimes look like a giant hack :)
I am not sure how it is feasible though. Might be worth looking into it
since this method seems to work for forums quite alright. You never get to
"fix" the copies the users get though...
I'll keep you posted !
--
Marc-Olivier Barre
XMPP ID : marco(a)marcochapeau.org
www.MarcOChapeau.org
7:42 p.m.
New subject: Forum-like user edition of posts (Was: CENSORING public archives)
Hello Marc!
I just asked more out of curiousity about my rights on the posts I do. Of
course I give them willingly, but I thought, we were just "better" :-) than
some of these commercial-open platforms, which take your stuff, but have the
righ to keep it at their site, not allowing you to get something off the
record or something like it.
So the "FM" was more the "list policy of posting and content". :-)
thanks
for responding and telling me about the technical aspects of it.
Kindly yours
Julien
--------
Music was my first love and it will be my last (John Miles)
======== FIND MY WEB-PROJECT AT: ========
http://ltsb.sourceforge.net
the Linux TextBased Studio guide
======= AND MY PERSONAL PAGES AT: =======
http://www.juliencoder.de
8:57 p.m.
New subject: Forum-like user edition of posts (Was: CENSORING public archives)
On Tuesday 02 February 2010 18:36:38 Marc-Olivier Barre wrote:
You never get to
"fix" the copies the users get though...
I am sure that somewhere out there there are busy beavers hard at work trying
to solve that little problem too. They will be quite happy with having
to "own" your computer if that is what it takes I am sure...
drew
10:09 p.m.
New subject: Forum-like user edition of posts (Was: CENSORING public archives)
drew Roberts wrote:
On Tuesday 02 February 2010 18:36:38 Marc-Olivier
Barre wrote:
Hahahah, er
Winston loathed this exercise, which sent shooting pains all the way
from his heels to his buttocks and often ended by bringing on another
coughing fit. The half-pleasant quality went out of his meditations. The
past, he reflected, had not merely been altered, it had been actually
destroyed. For how could you establish even the most obvious fact when
there existed no record outside your own memory? He tried to remember in
what year he had first heard mention of Big Brother. He thought it must
have been at some time in the sixties, but it was impossible to be
certain. In the Party histories, of course, Big Brother figured as the
leader and guardian of the Revolution since its very earliest days. His
exploits had been gradually pushed backwards in time until already they
extended into the fabulous world of the forties and the thirties, when
the capitalists in their strange cylindrical hats still rode through the
streets of London in great gleaming motor-cars or horse carriages with
glass sides. There was no knowing how much of this legend was true and
how much invented. Winston could not even remember at what date the
Party itself had come into existence. He did not believe he had ever
heard the word Ingsoc before 1960, but it was possible that in its
Oldspeak form -- 'English Socialism', that is to say -- it had been
current earlier. Everything melted into mist. Sometimes, indeed, you
could put your finger on a definite lie. It was not true, for example,
as was claimed in the Party history books, that the Party had invented
aeroplanes. He remembered aeroplanes since his earliest childhood. But
you could prove nothing. There was never any evidence. Just once in his
whole life he had held in his hands unmistakable documentary proof of
the falsification of an historical fact. And on that occasion --
http://www.george-orwell.org/1984/2.html
You never get to
"fix" the copies the users get though...
I am sure that somewhere out there there are busy beavers hard at work trying
to solve that little problem too. They will be quite happy with having
to "own" your computer if that is what it takes I am sure...
drew
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
7:41 p.m.
On Tuesday 02 February 2010 06:20 pm, Julien Claassen wrote:
If I post something isn't it my material, of
course given for the
eyes of all. So shouldn't I be able to change it - at least in the
original archive? In other forums - not mailing lists though - I saw
the possibility to change posts afterwards, mainly erase stuff. Then
the post would have a note sticking to it: "Changed X times."
It's a bit more than complete idle curiousity, yet only slightly. :-)
Ost's post remains unchanged in my archives, and in those of all the other
people who subscribe to the list via email and don't delete old mail. On a
web forum, aside from those that forward new posts to thread subscribers
via email, the canonical version of the post is the one on the web. On a
mailing list like LAU, it's the one that reached the subscribers' inboxes.
I think that's the reason that feature is rare in mailing list software.
Rob
3 Feb
3 Feb
6:32 a.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Am 03.02.2010 00:36, schrieb Rob:
On Tuesday 02 February 2010 06:20 pm, Julien Claassen
wrote:
The Chinese have asying:
"2 things do not return to you:
1: the arrow you have released from the bow's string
2: the word you have spoken
"
I consider it a quality of mailing lists, that you cannot easily doctor
or erase, what you have sent. Of course one should switch some brains
"ON" before sending, even though I did not do so in each and every case
I posted, I still see this principle at work when I read mailing lists
and I like it.
For the legal issues:
in Germany, someone, who adminsters a website or any other
communication-device accessable by the public is responsible for
unlawfull posts as a so-called "Mitstörer" (co-offender). That is: such
a person is not directly liable for any offending posts but has to act
within 48h when he/she is informed, that a post is offending someone or
affecting the law. And the admin has to do so in the limits of what is
actually possible for him/her. You have to remove posts from you own
site and maybe inform mirroring sites that you know of, then you did
what you can and thats it. The rest is between the lawyer and the OP,
who's mail-adress is known.
So IF a lawyer sends you a letter (usually a signed one on paper),
telling you the post found at this or that url, is offending someone,
the lawyer works for, you have to act whithin 48h after recieving the
mail. If it is not a lawyer but a OP, that finds out his/her own post
offending/unlawfull, it is wise, to remove/censor what can be reached,
if you dont, you should be quite sure, that you can make a stand before
court in the sense of: "yes, I did know, that the OP was sure the post
was offending but I did not believe - I choose to wait for a letter from
a lawyer...". In that case the risk, to be at least charged for the
costs of the lawsuit is quite high.
This all goes for german jurisdiction and the rules are only derivatives
of practical jurisdiction, spoken by judges in actual lawsuites, they
are not hardcoded to the law.
I also think, that the risk to loose rights, you do not exercise, is
quite high. So in the given case I see a diclosure of information that
is no disclosure after all, since everybody can interpolate, where the
support for iLocked plug-ins in receptor comes from. So defending the
right of free expression against a case of utter stupidity could be a
good thing to do here. Still the post is from the OP and if he gets in
trouble, because you want to fight stupidity, it is a different matter...
best regards
"I did not say that - and also I was not here...."
the navigator(C)(R) in Frank Herberts "Dune"(C)(R) as adapted in a
Film(C)(R) by David Lynch....
;-)
HZN
If I post something isn't it my material,
of course given for the
eyes of all. So shouldn't I be able to change it - at least in the
original archive? In other forums - not mailing lists though - I saw
the possibility to change posts afterwards, mainly erase stuff. Then
the post would have a note sticking to it: "Changed X times."
It's a bit more than complete idle curiousity, yet only slightly. :-)
Ost's post remains unchanged in my archives, and in those of all the other
people who subscribe to the list via email and don't delete old mail. On a
web forum, aside from those that forward new posts to thread subscribers
via email, the canonical version of the post is the one on the web. On a
mailing list like LAU, it's the one that reached the subscribers' inboxes.
I think that's the reason that feature is rare in mailing list software.
Rob -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAktpUNYACgkQ1Aecwva1SWOKVwCZAWt0c1DHNfL6EYWw0MIEiYR0
1D0AmweXhrtjJQgCRSI6qdEEdp+s4NDC
=JUTf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
2 Feb
2 Feb
10:33 a.m.
I'd suggest that we give Michael Ost a break and remove the post.
How many of us have hit the 'send' button, only to regret it later?
As many avid readers know, this is a pretty small and esoteric community, and there is
very little danger that anyone outside of this community will ever read the post (public
or not) including me. I am so confident that so little we write will be read that I
intend to pull an April Fool's joke on a couple hundred musicians without even
worrying about the danger of them reading the archives and getting the outline of the
joke.
We all know that NDAs are the equivalent of the Japanese card exchange ceremony (only
Americans are so caught up in lawsuits that an NDA replaces the business cards). Why a
company would not want to get free publicity is beyond me, it's pretty hard to come
by. They must be playing the 'secret' game to enhance the value of their
completely indecipherable message.
I guess you've inspired me to devote the necessary cycles and go ahead and play the
April Fool's joke.
-Mike Mazarick
PS - If Michael Ost wanted to post the NDA after removing the identifiable company names,
we could probably all use a good NDA, if nothing else but to have our own 'card'
to pull out to let folks know we are 'players' that have to be taken seriously.
-----Original Message-----
From: Marc-Olivier Barre [mailto:marco@marcochapeau.org]
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 7:29 AM
To: Ivica Ico Bukvic; Michael Ost; Chris Halaby
Cc: Linux Audio User
Subject: [LAU] CENSORING public archives (Was: Problem post)
On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:31:33 -0500, Ivica Ico Bukvic <ico(a)vt.edu>
wrote:
Marc, this is a top priority matter. Could you
please look into t
before
te end of the day?
Many thanks!
Ico
Michael Ost <most(a)museresearch.com> wrote:
>Hi Marc,
>
>Can you help me delete a post please? We are under threat of a
lawsuit
>because of it, so I'm eager to get this
resolved. Help?
>
>Cheers,
>
>Michael Ost
>
>Ivica Ico Bukvic wrote:
>> Michael,
>>
>> I am forwarding this to Marc who is in charge of mailing lists.
>>
>> Hope this helps!
>>
>> Marc, please see below.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Ivica Ico Bukvic, D.M.A.
>> Composition, Music Technology
>> Director, DISIS Interactive Sound & Intermedia Studio
>> Director, L2Ork Linux Laptop Orchestra
>> Assistant Co-Director, CCTAD
>> CHCI, CS, and Art (by courtesy)
>> Virginia Tech
>> Dept. of Music - 0240
>> Blacksburg, VA 24061
>> (540) 231-6139
>> (540) 231-5034 (fax)
>> ico(a)vt.edu
>> http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/bukvic/
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Michael Ost [mailto:most@museresearch.com]
>>> Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 1:20 PM
>>> To: Ivica Ico Bukvic
>>> Cc: Chris Halaby
>>> Subject: Problem post
>>>
>>> Ivica,
>>>
>>> I made a post to linux-audio-user in January 2007 ([linux-audio-
user]
>>> iLok protection on Linux Wed Jan 10
15:22:48 EST 2007) that
violates
an
>>> NDA that my company has with the copy
protection company, [blah, blah, blah]
>>>
>>> Would you be able to delete the post for me? I found instructions
for
>>> how to do it with the mailman mailing
list program here:
>>> http://wiki.list.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=4030681
>>>
>>> Thanks for your attention,
>>>
>>> Michael Ost
>>
>
Hello all,
Given the nature of this discussion, I am CCing the linux-audio-user
mailing list since this is about deleting legitimate content from the
archives because of a company that produces some of those shitty
software
locks. I'm not gonna go easy on this.
First of all, let me remind you, and every linux-audio-user member out
there that the archives *ARE PUBLIC*, and thus what you post here will
be
eventually readable by the *WHOLE WORLD*.
Read this again: the archives *ARE PUBLIC*, and thus what you post here
will be eventually readable by the *WHOLE WORLD*
Once more just to make sure: the archives *ARE PUBLIC*, and thus what
you
post here will be eventually readable by the *WHOLE WORLD*
Deleting the post is not going to happen, I am only willing to censor
the
one post that poses an issue provided the name of the company is
mentioned
on a censor banner inside the post. The least we can do with such a
case is
add a little public humiliation to this.
Also I would like to say that this is the one and only time that this
happens. Next time, the original poster will face the legal
consequences. I
hope this is crystal clear to every one reading.
Just to make sure we are talking about the right post, is it this one ?
[Let's give Michael Ost a break]
I will not even read a reply that does not include the linux-audio-user
list in CC.
Cheers,
--
Marc-Olivier Barre
XMPP ID : marco(a)marcochapeau.org
www.MarcOChapeau.org 
12:48 p.m.
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 4:29 AM, Marc-Olivier Barre
<marco(a)marcochapeau.org> wrote:
On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:31:33 -0500, Ivica Ico Bukvic
<ico(a)vt.edu> wrote:
Hi all,
I have no direct vested interest in any of the products or
companies involved here.
From my POV mailing lists are public. The post is out there and all
someone has to do is copy the post and send it to 100 mailing lists
with the title "Look at the interesting post in LAU about iLok and
censoring" and it's never going to go away. I still have a copy here
in GMail. I think redacting it from one list's archives when it now
exists in literally thousands of places is pretty much a fool's
errand.
That said, would the list manager __really__ censor something -
even just once - based on no real evidence other than the OP's
description as to the the reason it's being asked to be removed? As a
devil's advocate maybe this has nothing to do with lawsuits at all and
it's just a business decision Muse or someone else is trying to take
action on? I assume Muse has competitors. Maybe they don't want them
to know what's going on business-wise. If the list manager looks at
the NDA as well as communications from Pace to Muse, etc., and decides
that he wants to delete something then that's his business. If we list
members don't like it (and ever find out about it!!) then we can fire
him. (j/k)
Now, I think Michael Ost has been a good contributor here over the
years and if he were personally calling me on the phone and asking me
to remove it from me personal email archives I then I would almost
certainly raise my eye-brows, smile, tease him a bit, playfully try to
extract a little extortion (1 beer Michael?) and then just do it. I
think Michael might have both a large phone bill and bar bill this
next month or two... ;-)
Just my 2 cents,
Mark
Marc, this is a top priority matter. Could you
please look into t before
te end of the day?
Many thanks!
Ico
Michael Ost <most(a)museresearch.com> wrote:
>Hi Marc,
>
>Can you help me delete a post please? We are under threat of a lawsuit
>because of it, so I'm eager to get this resolved. Help?
>
>Cheers,
>
>Michael Ost
>
>Ivica Ico Bukvic wrote:
>> Michael,
>>
>> I am forwarding this to Marc who is in charge of mailing lists.
>>
>> Hope this helps!
>>
>> Marc, please see below.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Ivica Ico Bukvic, D.M.A.
>> Composition, Music Technology
>> Director, DISIS Interactive Sound & Intermedia Studio
>> Director, L2Ork Linux Laptop Orchestra
>> Assistant Co-Director, CCTAD
>> CHCI, CS, and Art (by courtesy)
>> Virginia Tech
>> Dept. of Music - 0240
>> Blacksburg, VA 24061
>> (540) 231-6139
>> (540) 231-5034 (fax)
>> ico(a)vt.edu
>> http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/bukvic/
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Michael Ost [mailto:most@museresearch.com]
>>> Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 1:20 PM
>>> To: Ivica Ico Bukvic
>>> Cc: Chris Halaby
>>> Subject: Problem post
>>>
>>> Ivica,
>>>
>>> I made a post to linux-audio-user in January 2007 ([linux-audio-user]
>>> iLok protection on Linux Wed Jan 10 15:22:48 EST 2007) that violates
an
>>> NDA that my company has with the copy
protection company, Pace AP.
>>>
>>> Would you be able to delete the post for me? I found instructions for
>>> how to do it with the mailman mailing list program here:
>>> http://wiki.list.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=4030681
>>>
>>> Thanks for your attention,
>>>
>>> Michael Ost
>>
>
Hello all,
Given the nature of this discussion, I am CCing the linux-audio-user
mailing list since this is about deleting legitimate content from the
archives because of a company that produces some of those shitty software
locks. I'm not gonna go easy on this.
First of all, let me remind you, and every linux-audio-user member out
there that the archives *ARE PUBLIC*, and thus what you post here will be
eventually readable by the *WHOLE WORLD*.
Read this again: the archives *ARE PUBLIC*, and thus what you post here
will be eventually readable by the *WHOLE WORLD*
Once more just to make sure: the archives *ARE PUBLIC*, and thus what you
post here will be eventually readable by the *WHOLE WORLD*
Deleting the post is not going to happen, I am only willing to censor the
one post that poses an issue provided the name of the company is mentioned
on a censor banner inside the post. The least we can do with such a case is
add a little public humiliation to this.
Also I would like to say that this is the one and only time that this
happens. Next time, the original poster will face the legal consequences. I
hope this is crystal clear to every one reading.
Just to make sure we are talking about the right post, is it this one ?
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-user/2007-January/041742.…
I will not even read a reply that does not include the linux-audio-user
list in CC.
Cheers,
--
Marc-Olivier Barre
XMPP ID : marco(a)marcochapeau.org
www.MarcOChapeau.org
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
1:30 p.m.
On Tuesday 02 February 2010 17:48:27 Mark Knecht wrote:
Now, I think Michael Ost has been a good
contributor here over the
years and if he were personally calling me on the phone and asking me
to remove it from me personal email archives I then I would almost
certainly raise my eye-brows, smile, tease him a bit, playfully try to
extract a little extortion (1 beer Michael?) and then just do it. I
think Michael might have both a large phone bill and bar bill this
next month or two... ;-)
Sounds like a good reason for Michael to come to this years LAC :-)
Arnold
2:05 p.m.
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Mark Knecht <markknecht(a)gmail.com> wrote:
censoring" and it's never going to go away. I
still have a copy here
in GMail. I think redacting it from one list's archives when it now
exists in literally thousands of places is pretty much a fool's
errand.
good point, and has been made by others.
That said, would the list manager __really__ censor
something -
even just once - based on no real evidence other than the OP's
description as to the the reason it's being asked to be removed? As a
devil's advocate maybe this has nothing to do with lawsuits at all and
it's just a business decision Muse or someone else is trying to take
action on? I assume Muse has competitors. Maybe they don't want them
actually, I think it makes more sense to question Marc's motives. he
says that his purpose was to publicly shame Pace. yet, I do not find
Pace as a recipient to his original email. Ico is there. Michael and
Chris from Muse are there. He even took the time to add LAU. yet,
while lecturing Michael on how the Internet works, he couldn't be
bothered to find an email address for the very company that he was
railing against?
I think Marc's reasons are much simpler - he got pissed that he was
asked to do something that he didn't want to do, so he bitched to the
list and turned it into "OMG FREE SPEECH!" issue.
what he has done, however, is risk damaging the relationship that Muse
has with the overall community. he has called attention to something
that most likely would have never have seen the light of day
otherwise, and embarrassed Michael and Chris (and Ico, by proxy).
this is one of those instances where a simple "no" would have
sufficed.
--
Josh Lawrence
http://www.hardbop200.com
4:26 p.m.
Please stop the flamewar.
(Childish or aggressive comments do not help Linux Audio users.)
Cheers,
Andreas
5:24 p.m.
New subject: Solved ? CENSORING public archives
Hello again,
Offending text has been removed at the request of the OP. I have been
forbidden by some people I am probably not allowed to mention to explicitly
state in the post that this removal was a "kind request" from
the-company-who-shall-not-be-named.
End result here:
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-user/2007-January/041741.…
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-user/2007-January/041768.…
Now to explain what just happened there, my choices regarding this matter
boiled down to 3 possibilities, all implying dreadful pain in various
private areas of my anatomy:
- Either I did nothing, and Muse got sued (if the NDA actually exists
since I have no proof of that) and linuxaudio.org might have got into
trouble too. No one wants that do we ? And at the end of the day, I would
have gotten the blame for it;
- Either I did remove this post under the hood like some of you suggested,
but then what kind of a trustworthy admin would I be ? What else would I
allow myself to do under the hood with my shiny shell access to the
linuxaudio.org server ? And at the end of the day, I would eventually have
gotten the blame for it;
- Either I removed some content from the list and made this decision
public, knowing very well in advance what kind of flames I would get in my
face. And at the end of the day, I did get my fair share of blame for it.
I am sorry if I hurt the feelings of Michael Ost. It has never been my
intention and I'm not blaming him for making a (rather insignificant IMHO)
mistake. Everyone does mistakes. His post contained nothing but the name of
a company and some rather blurry details of a hack to get a poor quality
protection device working on Linux.
As interesting as those past years administering these list were, I
certainly don't think it is an easy matter. With every kind of incidents we
had in the past few years (there were others of different nature but no
less disturbing) I have always dealt the same way. Make a big fat dirty
post and say everything all aloud. Each time I got flamed by some people
who seem to think this is easy. Each time I also received some support from
others maybe more aware of what a system administrators role is. But each
time there were no secrets.
In the end, I am happy to be doing this job for the community, and I'd
really like to keep doing that for some time. As always, if some of you
guys want to kick me out go ahead. The list still belongs to the members.
At least I hope it still does. But if you want to kick me out, you'll have
to take my place. Are you prepared to be in my shoes ?
Kind regards,
--
Marc-Olivier Barre
XMPP ID : marco(a)marcochapeau.org
www.MarcOChapeau.org
6:27 p.m.
New subject: Solved ? CENSORING public archives
On 02/02/2010 10:24 PM, Marc-Olivier Barre wrote:
Hello again,
Offending text has been removed at the request of the OP. I have been
forbidden by some people I am probably not allowed to mention to explicitly
state in the post that this removal was a "kind request" from
the-company-who-shall-not-be-named.
i'm totally with you on this matter, in principle.
the only problem is that pace (known to some as the makers of iLok,
their totally interesting website is at http://paceap.com) deserve a
healthy dose of polite yet articulate public opinion (although if your
fingers are itching already, a moment of quiet contemplation might be in
order before hitting "send").
whereas the perpetrator of that stupid NDA, on whose behalf you censored
one copy(!) of the archive (oh the sweet irony of this), is a very nice
guy, and this whole stupid steaming pile of shit hits the wrong person.
that's very sad. that's also how it goes.
i hope by this token action museresearch has fulfilled their legal duty
and got the troll off their ass, and the rest of the internet can just
chug along in peace.
or maybe let's collect some spare change and buy them out. if they have
to resort to pissing off business partners like that, it won't be too
expensive :-D
now i'm being pace all discreet and pace will pace shut up and not pace
interfere with pace anybody else's legal pace entanglements pace anymore.
censor this :-D
tongue firmly in cheek and brain still in place,
jörn
6:46 p.m.
New subject: Solved ? CENSORING public archives
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Marc-Olivier Barre
<marco(a)marcochapeau.org> wrote:
In the end, I am happy to be doing this job for the
community, and I'd
really like to keep doing that for some time. As always, if some of you
guys want to kick me out go ahead. The list still belongs to the members.
At least I hope it still does. But if you want to kick me out, you'll have
to take my place. Are you prepared to be in my shoes ?
It probably is not said often enough: Thank you for your work on our behalf!
--
joq
6:54 p.m.
New subject: Solved ? CENSORING public archives
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Marc-Olivier Barre
<marco(a)marcochapeau.org> wrote:
As interesting as those past years administering these
list were, I
certainly don't think it is an easy matter. With every kind of incidents we
had in the past few years (there were others of different nature but no
less disturbing) I have always dealt the same way. Make a big fat dirty
post and say everything all aloud. Each time I got flamed by some people
who seem to think this is easy. Each time I also received some support from
others maybe more aware of what a system administrators role is. But each
time there were no secrets.
Marc - I was one that was particularly critical of your first post.
my problem was *not* with your decision, however - your feelings on
censorship and how you choose to manage the list are your business,
not mine, and I realize that I have no dog in this fight. my issue
was with *how* you did it, and I think if you read back over your
wording, you'll see why (I'll not quote your own words back to you).
you can take a stand on your principles without driving further
division between people. while I'm sure there are those who will
disagree with me, I believe that *how* we say things is just as
important as *what* we say. sometimes the Internet gives us this
feeling of being disconnected, that we can say whatever we want and it
simply doesn't matter. I think that this brief 'spat' today shows us
that, on _both_ sides of the issue, how things are stated matters a
great deal.
you are doing a great service to the Linux audio community, and your
work is appreciated by me and others.
--
Josh Lawrence
http://www.hardbop200.com
1:32 p.m.
Marc-Olivier Barre wrote:
Deleting the post is not going to happen, I am only
willing to censor the
one post that poses an issue provided the name of the company is mentioned
on a censor banner inside the post. The least we can do with such a case is
add a little public humiliation to this.
I'm not sure what "censoring" means. Are you expecting some sort of edit
from me? Mentioning Muse Research (my company) is fine. Mentioning the
other company in a public forum is the problem. Can we avoid that please?
Just to make sure we are talking about the right post,
is it this one ?
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-user/2007-January/041742.…
Yes.
Thanks for considering this special case,
Michael Ost
2:12 p.m.
On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 09:32:46AM -0800, Michael Ost wrote:
I'm not sure what "censoring" means. Are
you expecting some sort of edit
from me? Mentioning Muse Research (my company) is fine. Mentioning the
other company in a public forum is the problem. Can we avoid that please?
Now this is strange. An NDA is an agreement to keep
some well-defined confidential information secret.
The existence or name of 'the other company' can't
be confidential information since they advertise.
Nor is it a secret that your are using their product.
Some details of the original post could be considered
confidential (even if of little value). But not the
name of 'the other company'.
It could be that your employer has signed a contract
that would prohibit them from discussing 'the other
company' in public. But that would not be an NDA but
something more sinister.
Ciao,
--
FA
O tu, che porte, correndo si ?
E guerra e morte !
4:43 p.m.
On Tuesday 02 February 2010 01:08 pm, fons(a)kokkinizita.net wrote:
Some details of the original post could be considered
confidential (even if of little value). But not the
name of 'the other company'.
If divulging the use of winelib to link to a Windows copy protection blob
(duh) built against a specific, obsolete version of the Linux kernel is
enough for Pace to threaten a lawsuit, I'm thinking they were looking for a
reason to end their relationship with Muse. It sucks to be Muse if that's
the case, but even if they're legally in the right, Pace are being jerks
about it. And now the entire world knows it, the world is not subject to
any NDAs, and if Pace starts sending threatening letters to all the
different mailing list archives out there, people are going to start
blogging about it and Pace will look like bigger jerks than SCO.
Considering how thoroughly the Windows version of Pace iLok appears (from a
quick Google search) to have been expunged from cracked software, and how
openly distributed that cracked software appears to be, I think they have
better uses for their legal budget while they still have clients.
Also, I don't know what it looks like in the public archives, but I
received two verbatim copies of Ost's original post, dated one minute
apart. Even if that's just a glitch on my end, there are a number of posts
subsequent to Ost's which quote Ost's entire post verbatim, each of them
likely available in all the public archives. I don't think Pace is really
trying to suppress knowledge of the use of DLLs in their implementation,
and they're certainly not trying to distance themselves from iLok (look at
their home page). It's hard for me to believe that a company with a
technical bent could think a person can take back a public post over 3
years later and have that post disappear from all the places it ends up on
the Internet. So this looks like Pace trying to get out of a business
relationship by force. (This is actually the most flattering speculation I
can come up with. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt.)
And now the other proprietary software vendors who may be reading this list
or finding this whole sad affair while researching iLok will know that Pace
is that kind of company.
As for the statement that the post's continued existence will keep other
proprietary software vendors from sharing their knowledge on Linux mailing
lists: if they can't do so without coming back 3 years later in a legal
tizzy, perhaps they shouldn't. If they can, there's no need to worry.
Rob
5409
days inactive
5410
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
32 comments
22 participants
participants (22)
-
Andreas Kuckartz -
Arnold Krille -
Burkhard Wölfel -
david -
drew Roberts -
fons＠kokkinizita.net -
Gwenhwyfaer -
Hartmut Noack -
Jack O'Quin -
Josh Lawrence -
Julien Claassen -
Jörn Nettingsmeier -
Luke Peterson -
Marc-Olivier Barre -
Mark Knecht -
Martin Peach -
Michael Ost -
Mike Mazarick -
Monty Montgomery -
Nedko Arnaudov -
Rob -
Tim Clewlow