PHWinfo - Afficher un message - Copyright

01/09/2007, 17h25

Brian Cryer wrote:
> "Blinky the Shark" <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote in message
> news:slrnfdi1dp.6d8.no.spam@thurston.blinkynet.net ...
><snip>
>> A few years ago I installed a little PHP script at blinkynet for
>> contact emailing. It was a freebie, but required a visual plug for
>> the company/author appear with the form (and on the
>> mail-send-confirmed page).
>>
>> Now whois shows a new creation date in Nov 2006 for the domain, and
>> it seems to have nothing to do with whomever I got the script from.
>>
>> Here's the old apparently one-page site from which I got the script,
>> as it appears at the way-back archive from Jan 1 '04.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/yr2vzv
>>
>> Here's the new outfit that has the same name.
>>
>> http://scriptsthatwork.com/
>>
>> Looks like some kind of whatever you call sites that are nothing but
>> links to other sites. And not at all focused: essays for college
>> students, health, vacation, blah blah blah.
>>
>> Opinions, please. Do I owe *these* guys the mentions and links?
>
> Firstly, I'm not a lawyer ...
>
> This is a tricky one, and I think all I'm able to do is summarise the
> issues as I see it.
>
> 1. The domain has clearly changed hands or been abandoned. What is
> there now is really just a fancy holding page. Following the links I
> think its owned now by "enom.com", who are clearly just domain name
> resellers. So whoever owns the copyright it clearly isn't with this
> domain any more.
>
> 2. The conditions of use of the script are that you keep the copyright
> notice and do not remove any references to ScriptsThatWork.com.
>
> So, on point 1 I would have throught you would be free to drop the
> link but on point 2 you are clearly bound to keep it. Shame.
>
> If it were me I'd abandon the script (thereby side stepping the issue)
> and replace it with either someone elses or write my own. Since you're
> capable, I'd suggest going the route of putting your own together.
> That way you could also get rid of those pesky <font> tags (grin).

Thanks for your input, Brian.

Re font tags, I looked for stuff like that before publishing the code.
I dont' see any in the two pages (form and confirmation) for the email.

http://improve-usenet.org/feedback.html

--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://improve-usenet.org <----------- New Site Aug 28

01/09/2007, 17h25	#5
Blinky the Shark Messages: n/a Hébergeur:	Re: Copyright - Old vs. New Site Brian Cryer wrote: > "Blinky the Shark" <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote in message > news:slrnfdi1dp.6d8.no.spam@thurston.blinkynet.net ... ><snip> >> A few years ago I installed a little PHP script at blinkynet for >> contact emailing. It was a freebie, but required a visual plug for >> the company/author appear with the form (and on the >> mail-send-confirmed page). >> >> Now whois shows a new creation date in Nov 2006 for the domain, and >> it seems to have nothing to do with whomever I got the script from. >> >> Here's the old apparently one-page site from which I got the script, >> as it appears at the way-back archive from Jan 1 '04. >> >> http://tinyurl.com/yr2vzv >> >> Here's the new outfit that has the same name. >> >> http://scriptsthatwork.com/ >> >> Looks like some kind of whatever you call sites that are nothing but >> links to other sites. And not at all focused: essays for college >> students, health, vacation, blah blah blah. >> >> Opinions, please. Do I owe these guys the mentions and links? > > Firstly, I'm not a lawyer ... > > This is a tricky one, and I think all I'm able to do is summarise the > issues as I see it. > > 1. The domain has clearly changed hands or been abandoned. What is > there now is really just a fancy holding page. Following the links I > think its owned now by "enom.com", who are clearly just domain name > resellers. So whoever owns the copyright it clearly isn't with this > domain any more. > > 2. The conditions of use of the script are that you keep the copyright > notice and do not remove any references to ScriptsThatWork.com. > > So, on point 1 I would have throught you would be free to drop the > link but on point 2 you are clearly bound to keep it. Shame. > > If it were me I'd abandon the script (thereby side stepping the issue) > and replace it with either someone elses or write my own. Since you're > capable, I'd suggest going the route of putting your own together. > That way you could also get rid of those pesky <font> tags (grin). Thanks for your input, Brian. Re font tags, I looked for stuff like that before publishing the code. I dont' see any in the two pages (form and confirmation) for the email. http://improve-usenet.org/feedback.html -- Blinky RLU 297263 Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org <----------- New Site Aug 28