From: "Robert Comer" 

> Yet what Joe is aiming to achieve here is hits for news.com.com. I have to
> go there to find out who is writing Joe's material, and  I need to know
that
> in order to judge credibility. (In this case the credibility is marginal).

As do I, and I have no problem with that.  If it were a quote like that
without the link, then yes, it'd be a problem.

> If I had a web site that posted material and hosted advertising and I
passed
> through news groups linking to stories on it with a short quote, I think
> that would be unacceptable behaviour. The only difference between Joe's
post
> and an ad for porn is that the subject matter is somewhat relevant. But he
> hasn't added any value to the advert. 'Eric Raymond writes at
> news.com.com....' would be a start.

I disagree, both in equating an *on*-topic quote with spam, and your
thoughts on his intention of posting such.  This quote was about a very
important thing in the Linux community, so it's definitely on topic since
it's the Linux section.

btw, don't think SCO will stop there should they prevail (not likely,
but...) Other OS's would be targeted next, and just like Rambus, they will
ultimately just end up screwing everyone out of the best technology because
of a corporate policy of litigation. (RDRAM should have become the
standard.)

- Bob Comer




"Paul Ranson"  wrote in message
news:3ecbb1ed$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> Yet what Joe is aiming to achieve here is hits for news.com.com. I have to
> go there to find out who is writing Joe's material, and  I need to know
that
> in order to judge credibility. (In this case the credibility is marginal).
>
> If I had a web site that posted material and hosted advertising and I
passed
> through news groups linking to stories on it with a short quote, I think
> that would be unacceptable behaviour. The only difference between Joe's
post
> and an ad for porn is that the subject matter is somewhat relevant. But he
> hasn't added any value to the advert. 'Eric Raymond writes at
> news.com.com....' would be a start.
>
> Paul
>
> "Robert Comer"  wrote in message
> news:3eca8926$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> > > Is there a difference between this sort of post and spam?
> > >
> > > An original source credit...
> >
> > He had the link, that's all one needs to find out those questions for
> > himself.
> >
> > >and some personal input would change matters.
> >
> > You can't guess what he thinks about it?    (pretty much the same
thing
> > I'd I expect)
> >
> > - Bob Comer
> >
> >
> > "Paul Ranson"  wrote in message
> > news:3eca6497$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> > > Is there a difference between this sort of post and spam?
> > >
> > > An original source credit and some personal input would change
matters.
> > >
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > "Joe Barr"  wrote in message
> > > news:pan.2003.05.20.02.53.09.253465{at}austin.rr.com...
> > > > http://news.com.com/2010-1071-1007758.html
> > > >
> > > >  The real story here is the lack of substance to the
SCO claims, and
> the
> > > >  increasingly remote chance that its lawyers will
prevail. A similar
> > case
> > > >  alleging plagiarism of Unix by an open-source
operating system was
> > > >  litigated in the early '90s. AT&T sued the University of
California,
> > > >  claiming that the BSD system infringed upon AT&T's
copyrights.
> > > >  Eventually, the court narrowed AT&T's concerns
down to only four
> source
> > > >  files, which the university simply replaced rather
than argue about
> > them.
> > > >  AT&T then settled the case by paying the
university's court costs.
> SCO
> > is
> > > >  not likely to do any better.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4