 | | Re: LEGOFan.net - central community run hub for all areas of the LEGO community. —Kelly McKiernan
|
| | | (...) The courts of the US have repeatedly upheld the distinction of infrastructure vs. content. For example, spammers using an ISP to send millions of non-solicited emails are liable for their actions, while the ISP is not (unless the ISP knowingly (...) (21 years ago, 22-Feb-04, to lugnet.org, lugnet.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: LEGOFan.net - central community run hub for all areas of the LEGO community. —Jacob Sparre Andersen
|
| | | | (...) Have I rejected that distinction anywhere? (...) Yes. Have I ever claimed anything else? (...) Wrong. They would have to give LFN a license to distribute their work, just as you have given Lugnet a license to distribute your work, when you (...) (21 years ago, 23-Feb-04, to lugnet.org, lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: LEGOFan.net - central community run hub for all areas of the LEGO community. —Kelly McKiernan
|
| | | | (...) Not that I've seen. However, this comment was in reply to your asking why content was different than code, which I hadn't seen addressed elsewhere. (...) Actually, the Lugnet T&Cs reserve Lugnet's right to redistribute all content posted, (...) (21 years ago, 24-Feb-04, to lugnet.org, lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: LEGOFan.net - central community run hub for all areas of the LEGO community. —Jacob Sparre Andersen
|
| | | | (...) No! Read them carefully. They do among other things say: »Sublicense to third parties the unrestricted right to exercise any or all of the foregoing rights granted with respect to the communication.« That is just the same as the sublicensing (...) (21 years ago, 25-Feb-04, to lugnet.org, lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
