Dot-net is definitely not a non-profit domain, as you can see from my email address (Qwest is the name for one of the baby-bells that provides local phone service to 14 states in the west and mid-west).
Dot-net is definitely not a non-profit domain, as you can see from my email address (Qwest is the name for one of the baby-bells that provides local phone service to 14 states in the west and mid-west).
This was the first issue I raised with Philip Greenspun, and his answer was: "We don't assert copyright in material contributed to photo.net, only a royalty-free perpetual license to publish.".
FYI, I also wanted each page to have a small area at the top or bottom for which I can decide the contents (like for pointing to the LF page), and an option for readers of the LF forum to search only the messages of the LF Forum and not the whole photo.net, but it appears that the photo.net team is overloaded and would not be able to implement these features for 6-12 months.
To completely take this thread on a tangent, here is a blurb from InterNIC about the definition of the top level domain names (.net, .org, .com, etc.).
"The .com, .info, .name, .net, and .org TLDs are open and unrestricted. Traditionally, however, names in .net have been used by organizations involved in Internet infrastructure activities and .org is frequently used by noncommercial organizations. .biz is reserved for use by businesses. For more information on .biz restrictions, please contact your registrar or visit the .biz registry operator at <www.nic.biz>. .name is dedicated exclusively to individuals' personal names."
Yes, dot-net is used for Internet infrastructure domains, especially in large companies where their ISP business in only one part of the company. Examples are AT&T (www.att.net), WorldCom, Sprint, etc. But these infrastructure activities are not non-profit (at least they are not intended to be non-profit).
If photo.net only demands a perpetual licence to publish, then that is what should appear in the small print. Instead, there is the statement that David posted. There is nothing to stop Phil selling the whole photo.net site to, say, Murdoch, who then gets rich(er) selling its collected wisdom in various ways without paying or even crediting the authors.
I don't actually care very much. Hell, in my day job I regularly pay people to take my copyright away from me. But it is an important point to consider, especially given the hysteria that regularly erupts here and on photo.net when anyone suggests giving away an image. Why are your ideas worth less when expressed in words and not pictures?
Here is a thought, Write a cogently and well thought out argument against this position and send it to Philip Greenspun, the owner of photo.net and this (and other LUSENET) forums. Don't rant, reason.
Who's ranting?
I can (and do) live with the current photo.net practice, but that's an explicit informed choice. The danger with a bulk move is that people find they have agreed to something by default, and I see nothing wrong with giving a heads up before the decision is made.
I wasn't referring to posts here in this forum. I was referring ( I thought rather directly) to any e-mail you might send to Philip greenspun, owner of these forums.
And Struan, I agree, I think a heads up is an excellent idea.
I didn't realize that Phil Greenspun owns Photo.Net.
Why does Photo.Net have the resources to support this forum as part of that site, when resources aren't available to support it as part of this site?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks