Authored by: jimbudler on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:03 PM EDT |
Yes. Let them have everything!
---
Jim Budler[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:04 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:05 PM EDT
- NO to all - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 06:33 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: peterhenry on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:34 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: l8gravely on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:53 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: Barbie on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 05:02 PM EDT
- Yes - Authored by: MikeA on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 05:18 PM EDT
- Yes - Authored by: FrankH on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 06:15 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 06:42 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: greywolf on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 08:01 PM EDT
- yes- with all comments - Authored by: nb on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 08:05 PM EDT
- Yes -- the whole Magilla - Authored by: rpalmer on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 08:47 PM EDT
- Yes - Authored by: jesse on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 09:56 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: chris hill on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 02:37 AM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 10:04 AM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 10:07 AM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 11:58 AM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: wolfear on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 04:22 PM EDT
- Yes - Authored by: elderlycynic on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:15 PM EDT
- Yes - Authored by: OrlandoNative on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:50 PM EDT
- Yes - Authored by: kyndair on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 02:59 PM EDT
- Yes - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 05:19 PM EDT
- Yes - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 06:48 PM EDT
- Yes - Authored by: StormReaver on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 08:35 PM EDT
- Yes - Authored by: kevinsnotalawyer on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 08:39 PM EDT
- Yes - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 10:45 PM EDT
- Yes - Authored by: docwhat on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 09:45 AM EDT
- Yes - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 09:51 AM EDT
- Yes - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 12:36 PM EDT
- Yes - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 02:23 PM EDT
- Yes - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 02:24 PM EDT
- Yes - Authored by: Marc Mengel on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 02:48 PM EDT
- I Agree! (n/t) - Authored by: penfold on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 08:18 PM EDT
- Yes. What about the EU library? - Authored by: stomfi on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 09:59 PM EDT
- Yes - Authored by: jmhill on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 11:23 PM EDT
- Yes - Authored by: rdoherty on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 11:51 PM EDT
- Yes - Authored by: bwbees0 on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 09:15 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: e.coli on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:30 PM EDT
- Yes - Everything for Everyone - Authored by: Griffin3 on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:32 PM EDT
- we need visuals here - Authored by: designerfx on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:41 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Col - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:42 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: nightfall on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:47 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: ruurd on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:55 PM EDT
- Yes to all - Authored by: LocoYokel on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:56 PM EDT
- Yes - agree - Authored by: sciamiko on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:57 PM EDT
- agreed - Authored by: sumzero on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:59 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: txwikinger on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:00 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Col - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:00 PM EDT
- Yes, to everything. But only articles closed for comments - Authored by: Winter on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:01 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: Erwan on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:01 PM EDT
- Yes. - Authored by: ak on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:01 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:03 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: dwiget001 on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:05 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: AdamBaker on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:07 PM EDT
- Yes to all - Authored by: rkhalloran on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:10 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: red floyd on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:18 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: AlanF on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:20 PM EDT
- Yes. Let everything be remembered. - Authored by: rcsteiner on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:23 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: ankylosaurus on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:26 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: Solaufein on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:27 PM EDT
- No objections here - Authored by: zman58 on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:28 PM EDT
- Everything has Creative Commons License anyway, sure let em have it. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:32 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: IanH on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:33 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: Doghouse on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:33 PM EDT
- Yes to everything a web spider can reach. - Authored by: yscydion on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:33 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:34 PM EDT
- Agreed ... Partially.... - Authored by: Hyrion on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:35 PM EDT
- YES - Authored by: baomike on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:36 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: jdashton on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:39 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: Pop69 on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:43 PM EDT
- Yes, but should filter some stuff - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:46 PM EDT
- Many resons to include comments - Authored by: hawk on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:55 PM EDT
- Yes for everything - Authored by: J.F. on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:59 PM EDT
- Include it all! n/t - Authored by: Eeyore on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 05:13 PM EDT
- Agree - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 05:27 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 05:27 PM EDT
- Permission Granted - Authored by: jpvlsmv on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 05:27 PM EDT
- Yes, Include Comments Too - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 05:33 PM EDT
- Yes - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 05:33 PM EDT
- Yes - Authored by: ThrPilgrim on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 06:21 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: jocaferro on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 05:39 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: BobinAlaska on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 05:47 PM EDT
- Yes. - Authored by: cc0028 on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 05:53 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: riodeg242 on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 05:54 PM EDT
- Yes - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 05:56 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: desertrat on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 05:57 PM EDT
- Agreed! - Authored by: tiger99 on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 05:57 PM EDT
- Yes. Everything open to all - Authored by: StrangeAttractor on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 05:59 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: mvs_tomm on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 05:59 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 06:03 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: drichards1953 on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 06:04 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: snakebitehurts on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 06:12 PM EDT
- Very much so. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 06:13 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: Sparhawk on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 06:13 PM EDT
- Yes indeed. Archive everything. - Authored by: bouchecl on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 06:14 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: proceng on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 06:14 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: mehl on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 06:15 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: corwyn on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 06:16 PM EDT
- Yes the lot - Authored by: globularity on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 06:17 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: Bill Pechter on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 06:26 PM EDT
- Yes - Authored by: qu1j0t3 on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 06:27 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: imperial on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 06:28 PM EDT
- Yes, the whole enchilada! - Authored by: Dick Gingras on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 06:29 PM EDT
- Yes, everything - Authored by: crs17 on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 06:30 PM EDT
- yes, including comments (n/t) - Authored by: erik_p on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 06:31 PM EDT
- Yes - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 06:33 PM EDT
- In totality (N/T) - Authored by: laitcg on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 06:33 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: qwertybdj on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 06:35 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: Latesigner on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 06:39 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: plungermonkey on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 06:40 PM EDT
- Yes - Authored by: rhdunn on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 06:42 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: stcm on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 06:48 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: Anonymous Coward on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 06:57 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: utahbob55 on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 06:59 PM EDT
- Of course! - Authored by: cricketjeff on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 07:08 PM EDT
- Of course! - Authored by: joel on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 08:06 AM EDT
- Of course! - Authored by: luvr on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 02:55 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: mjscud on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 07:12 PM EDT
- Yes - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 07:14 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 07:16 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: JLombard on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 07:20 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: shadesfox on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 07:22 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: Tinstaafl on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 07:26 PM EDT
- Yes- The Works. - Authored by: SK8TRBOI on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 07:29 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: drorh on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 07:29 PM EDT
- Yes to all n/t - Authored by: UncleJosh on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 07:43 PM EDT
- Yes to all on web site - Authored by: UncleJosh on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 07:51 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: joe on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 07:51 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: raya on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 07:52 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: Tyro on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 07:54 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: fredex on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 08:05 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: kawabago on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 08:07 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: IonLinux on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 08:09 PM EDT
- Yes - Authored by: Crocodile_Dundee on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 08:11 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: mks on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 08:15 PM EDT
- Yes - Authored by: digger53 on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 08:19 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: bishopi on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 08:19 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: jmart on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 08:26 PM EDT
- Include Everything! - Authored by: th80 on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 08:31 PM EDT
- Yes, all of it - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 08:31 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: wvhillbilly on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 08:47 PM EDT
- Yes to all n/t - Authored by: argel on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 08:48 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: rusty0101 on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 08:53 PM EDT
- Yes! - Authored by: kenryan on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 08:54 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: Zyphyr on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 08:57 PM EDT
- Yes to all n/t - Authored by: hellerite on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 09:02 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: Ric on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 09:11 PM EDT
- I've not posted a whole lot... - Authored by: EverGeek on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 09:28 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: ianshields on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 09:34 PM EDT
- Yes - include everything - Authored by: jjock on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 09:45 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: Haitch on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 09:46 PM EDT
- Yes - Authored by: eviltwin on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 09:58 PM EDT
- Yes to all. Please write a book PJ - Authored by: symbolset on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 09:59 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: Eahlmunde on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 10:25 PM EDT
- Hell YES; to everthing! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 10:28 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: oldgreybeard on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 10:30 PM EDT
- Yes, including my anonymous posts - Authored by: gvb on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 10:31 PM EDT
- Yes - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 11:21 PM EDT
- Support - Authored by: mattflaschen on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 11:41 PM EDT
- Yes, Yes, A Thousand Times Yes! - Authored by: llanitedave on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 11:53 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: 303 on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 12:30 AM EDT
- Yes -- all - Authored by: grouch on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 12:31 AM EDT
- Yes - Authored by: Mike_no_Softie on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 12:31 AM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: Ollathair on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 12:33 AM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: wvhillbilly on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 12:40 AM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 12:57 AM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: Nivag on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 01:37 AM EDT
- Yes, with no restrictions! - Authored by: CraigV on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 01:44 AM EDT
- Yes - everything - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 01:47 AM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: Sique on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 02:13 AM EDT
- yes to everything except spam site-promoting comments - Authored by: Ady on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 02:49 AM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: jrvalverde on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 03:14 AM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: coolmos on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 03:32 AM EDT
- Yes Please. All of the content. - Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 03:38 AM EDT
- Yes - Authored by: gotan on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 04:23 AM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: ingvar on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 04:29 AM EDT
- Agreed - Authored by: mnuttall on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 04:40 AM EDT
- Let 'em have the lot! - Authored by: The_Pirate on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 04:53 AM EDT
- Everything - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 05:06 AM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Col - Authored by: JimDiGriz on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 05:57 AM EDT
- Absolutely - I feel honoured to be a part of this community :) - Authored by: TiddlyPom on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 05:57 AM EDT
- Yes - Authored by: macrorodent on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 06:16 AM EDT
- Hear, hear! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 06:39 AM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 06:42 AM EDT
- yes to all - Authored by: NemesisNL on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 07:19 AM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 07:36 AM EDT
- Yes, all of it! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 07:40 AM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: theMutant on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 07:46 AM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: jp on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 07:59 AM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: OscarGunther on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 08:07 AM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: jjs on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 08:44 AM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: njharris on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 08:45 AM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 08:59 AM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 09:00 AM EDT
- Another AC with a Yes vote - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 09:00 AM EDT
- Yes (N/T) - Authored by: belboz on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 09:16 AM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: ntwkgestapo on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 09:17 AM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: NibbleAbit on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 09:19 AM EDT
- Agreed - Authored by: marcosdumay on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 09:30 AM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 09:42 AM EDT
- Yes, let them receive and redistribute everything - Authored by: dwheeler on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 09:48 AM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: vegard on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 10:17 AM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: pjcm on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 10:19 AM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: markonhawthorne on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 10:43 AM EDT
- Make it like Cell DNA. Replicate the archive so anybody can get a complete copy. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 10:52 AM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: eamacnaghten on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 11:22 AM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: fastzrex on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 11:58 AM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 12:07 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: Tsu Dho Nimh on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 12:30 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: Superbiskit on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 12:48 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: timkb4cq on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 12:49 PM EDT
- Most Definitely... - Authored by: Svartalf on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 01:05 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 01:08 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 01:11 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: UD on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 01:14 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: keesey on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 01:38 PM EDT
- Count me in - Authored by: overshoot on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 01:39 PM EDT
- Will there be expenses? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 02:02 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: emmenjay on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 02:15 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 02:16 PM EDT
- Go for it! NC - Authored by: TomWiles on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 02:21 PM EDT
- Yes - feel free to include my comments - Authored by: jcjodoin on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 03:53 PM EDT
- ..yes, I Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress, and fully so. ;o) N/T - Authored by: arnt on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 04:10 PM EDT
- Yes, by all means - Authored by: tomw on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 04:16 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: gmrath on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 05:01 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 05:12 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: ssavitzky on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 07:23 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: mipmip on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 08:25 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: Grog6 on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 10:11 PM EDT
- Yes, on the condition that it's everything in context - Authored by: BitOBear on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 01:41 PM EDT
- Yes - Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 02:38 PM EDT
- yes, let them archive everything (n/t) - Authored by: ggiedke on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 04:46 PM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: jquirk on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 09:22 PM EDT
- I trust PJ implicitly - I'll go with her decision - Authored by: eckenheimer on Friday, April 09 2010 @ 10:49 PM EDT
- Yes - Authored by: Jaybee on Monday, April 12 2010 @ 05:31 AM EDT
- Do You Want Groklaw to Be Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collections? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 15 2010 @ 05:42 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:03 PM EDT |
It's all part of the "Groklaw" experience. Dump everything in,
including the kitchen sink.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Put it all in there - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:05 PM EDT
- Put it all in there - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:06 PM EDT
- Yes, put it all in there - Authored by: NeilM on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:13 PM EDT
- Record it all! - Authored by: OmniGeek on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:21 PM EDT
- Put it all in there - Authored by: Knaldgas on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:24 PM EDT
- Put it all in there - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:26 PM EDT
- Put it all in there - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:29 PM EDT
- Put it all in there -- I agree, but... - Authored by: lnuss on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:29 PM EDT
- Put it all in there - Authored by: daveg on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:33 PM EDT
- Put it all in there - Authored by: HavingPun on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:34 PM EDT
- Give them all - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:56 PM EDT
- Put it all in there - Authored by: bjnord on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:07 PM EDT
- Put it all in there (with provisos and suggestions) - Authored by: chrisbrown on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:07 PM EDT
- Put it all in there - Authored by: ghost on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:12 PM EDT
- Put it all in there - Authored by: tedavids on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:19 PM EDT
- Put it all in there - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:24 PM EDT
- Put it all in there - Authored by: frith01 on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 05:26 PM EDT
- Put it all in there - Authored by: kozmcrae on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 05:29 PM EDT
- All of it. - Authored by: kbq on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 06:03 PM EDT
- Yes all of it - Creative Commons License - Authored by: kh on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 06:33 PM EDT
- I also agree - Authored by: trevorteusc on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 07:43 PM EDT
- Put it all in there - Authored by: Jeays on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 08:07 PM EDT
- Put it all in there -- Provided it Remains under the same Creative Commons License - Authored by: major.tom on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 11:18 PM EDT
- Put it all in there - Authored by: bwcbwc on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 02:19 AM EDT
- lock Stock and Two smoking Barrels - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 02:32 AM EDT
- Put it all in there - Authored by: starsky on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 07:29 AM EDT
- Put it all in there - Authored by: redwoodmantom on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 08:56 AM EDT
- Put it all in there - Authored by: UncleVom on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 10:10 AM EDT
- Put it all in there - Authored by: philc on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 10:25 AM EDT
- I Agree - Authored by: snorpus on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 10:40 AM EDT
- Put it all in there - Authored by: 400guy on Tuesday, April 20 2010 @ 12:57 PM EDT
|
Authored by: archanoid on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:07 PM EDT |
I'm just a bit player and just lurk most of the time. But I don't care what they
do with my comments. Make them publicly available for the rest of time if you
want. OK by me.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Minor player - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:21 PM EDT
- Minor player - Authored by: Kirby on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:22 PM EDT
- Minor player - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:36 PM EDT
- Minor player - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 05:13 PM EDT
- Minor player - Authored by: MaTed on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 08:22 PM EDT
- Minor player - Authored by: Stormcrow on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:40 PM EDT
- Minor player - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:49 PM EDT
- Minor player - Authored by: morgad on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:51 PM EDT
- Minor player - Authored by: diddy on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:53 PM EDT
- Minor player - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:57 PM EDT
- Minor player - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:06 PM EDT
- Minor player - Authored by: David on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:08 PM EDT
- Minor player - Authored by: nola on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:37 PM EDT
- Minor player - Authored by: nerd6 on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 05:24 PM EDT
- Minor player - Authored by: IANALitj on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 05:25 PM EDT
- Minor player - Authored by: Willu on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 05:45 PM EDT
- Minor player - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 05:50 PM EDT
- Minor player - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 05:57 PM EDT
- Minor player - Authored by: Thumbo on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 06:16 PM EDT
- Minor player - Authored by: tuxi on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 06:22 PM EDT
- Minor player - Authored by: SpammersAreScum on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 06:45 PM EDT
- Minor player - Authored by: Juggler9 on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 06:59 PM EDT
- OK by me (yet another Minor player) n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 07:02 PM EDT
- Minor player - Yes also - Authored by: RabidChipmunk on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 07:16 PM EDT
- Minor player - Authored by: knala on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 09:12 PM EDT
- Minor player - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 10:16 PM EDT
- Minor player - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 10:47 PM EDT
- Minor player - Authored by: Ashtead on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 02:03 AM EDT
- Minor player - Authored by: NickFortune on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 05:07 AM EDT
- Minor player - Authored by: robmyers on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 06:15 AM EDT
- Minor player - Authored by: alasmi on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 06:18 AM EDT
- Minor player - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 09:52 AM EDT
- Minor player says Yes - Authored by: Dave Ivedorne on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 11:22 AM EDT
- Minor player -- no problem - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 04:24 AM EDT
|
Authored by: DBLR on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:07 PM EDT |
I say let them have everything including all reply's.
---
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is
a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:07 PM EDT |
I may need to create an account now so that my name will be in the library of
congress archives.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Cool - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:49 PM EDT
- Cool - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 05:17 PM EDT
|
Authored by: tknarr on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:09 PM EDT |
For myself, I'd say make everything publicly available, comments and all. I
made my comments knowing they'd be visible to the world and would be archived
across the world (at the very least by people making their own copies for
personal reference). I don't see what the Library wants to do as any different
from what I expected.
More formally, you have my permission for my
comments for any option you choose. And I vote for making everything, comments
and all, publicly available. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:13 PM EDT |
Not a registered user, so I have no standing to comment on that, but think the
whole kaboodle is necessary, as PJ articles sometimes draw from them, and the
armchair lawyering is fun to read.
Nice work [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:16 PM EDT |
. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- I give you permission to use all anonymous postings n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:38 PM EDT
- well played, sir [n/t] - Authored by: sumzero on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:56 PM EDT
- As another anonymous poster, I'm happy with that. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 05:17 PM EDT
- Concur, Put it all in. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 07:15 PM EDT
- I am happy with it as well - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 08:20 PM EDT
- I give you permission to use all anonymous postings n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 07:34 AM EDT
- Me too - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 12:08 PM EDT
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:18 PM EDT |
My only hesitation is the number of silly and embarrassing comments I have made
here.
By all means include the entirety of Groklaw, the community is an important part
of what Groklaw is.
It is a great acknowledgment of the value you and your work leading this group
have brought to the subject.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Silly comments - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:54 PM EDT
- Same feeling, same conclusion - Authored by: artp on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:32 PM EDT
- Want Groklaw to e Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collection - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 05:16 PM EDT
- Silliness... - Authored by: jbeadle on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 05:32 PM EDT
- Want Groklaw to e Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collection - Authored by: Terrier Tribe on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 05:44 PM EDT
- Want Groklaw to e Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collection - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 05:47 PM EDT
- On the flip side - Authored by: achurch on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 05:51 PM EDT
- Yes! - Authored by: brian-from-fl on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 07:00 PM EDT
- .. and failed attempts at humor. - Authored by: dbc on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 07:56 PM EDT
- Want Groklaw to e Included in the Library of Congress's Historic Internet Materials Collection - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 09:57 PM EDT
- I concur - Authored by: ile on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 08:49 AM EDT
- Silly comments - Authored by: The Cornishman on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 10:27 AM EDT
|
Authored by: nattt on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:18 PM EDT |
Yes, all. Fine by me. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:20 PM EDT |
By all means, please include the comments! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: cmcnabb on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:20 PM EDT |
Include it all. 100 years from now the comments could well be more important
than the main article itself.
---
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the
government, there is tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:20 PM EDT |
My vote is to let them have everything and show it all to everybody.
My opinion is that anybody who publishes anything on the Internet and thinks
that what they write won't be available to everybody forever is fooling
themselves.
Karl O. Pinc <kop@meme.com>[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:21 PM EDT |
I think this is an incredible opportunity and I agree to it.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:21 PM EDT |
Congrats on the offer . [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:24 PM EDT |
Anyone who posts anything on the internet does so with full knowledge that it
is, or could be made, public. Anyone who does not believe this is as self
deluding as SCO.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Thalaska on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:25 PM EDT |
Congratulations PJ! Let them have all of it. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: aslagle on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:27 PM EDT |
Unequivocally, yes! Let everyone see the whole site!
After all, that's what we do here every day, and it wouldn't
be Groklaw without it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: fcw on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:27 PM EDT |
It's already all here; I don't see why an official archive of it shouldn't be
all there too.
So, yes, I say they should take all of it, comments and all. Otherwise, they'll
be preserving a distorted picture for posterity, and what's the value in that?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: arch_dude on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:28 PM EDT |
I hereby grant permission for the library of congress to make my comments
available to anyone. I hereby grant PJ to permit the library of Congress to copy
my comments.
These permissions apply to comments I have entered both when logged in and when
not logged in.
(And I vote to turn over everything and to make it available to all.)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Yes to all, open to all. - Authored by: swmcd on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:42 PM EDT
- Another yes! (as above) - Authored by: jongwil on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:57 PM EDT
- Yes to all, open to all. - Authored by: DaveAtFraud on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 06:49 PM EDT
- Yes to all, open to all. - Authored by: mnhou on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 09:39 PM EDT
- Yes to all, open to all. - Authored by: ssavitzky on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 07:25 PM EDT
- Yes to all, open to all. - Authored by: JesseW on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 07:26 PM EDT
- Yes to all, open to all. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 05:35 AM EDT
|
Authored by: eschasi on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:28 PM EDT |
I am in favor of this. Any of my postings may be included. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: lnuss on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:32 PM EDT |
I hope they will include Grokdoc and Grokline also, still important information.
---
Larry N.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: joef on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:33 PM EDT |
When I posted whatever I posted, I expected it to be seen without restriction.
Not all of it was relevant and some was flippant, but there it is FWIW. And the
"no restrictions" option is fine by me
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Stumbles on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:34 PM EDT |
PJ this is indeed an honor for Groklaw. Personally I have no issue with making
all of Groklaw publicly accessible including comments. I can understand why some
might not want their comments publicly available.
However, anything you do on the Internet is hardly private to start with, just
ask those who were or have been embarrassed by the Way Back machine. As you have
discovered it is not all that easy keeping comments from "escaping into the
wild".
So I think anyone who has posted here that does not agree are trying to close
the barn door after the horse is out. At best it is a delusion on their part and
should have thought twice about clicking that "Submit Comment" button.
I think everyone should agree to this because it follows the true Open Source
tradition; Information wants to be freed.
Feel free to use my feeble comments in this grand archival project.
---
You can tuna piano but you can't tune a fish.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:34 PM EDT |
My posts have been a very paltry contribution, but the library is welcome to
them, and open to all. Really, it's the only way it should be.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:35 PM EDT |
This site is truly a vital part of legal history. From your reporting, to the
commenters' analyses, to the media reactions, virtually every facet of the US
Legal system has been displayed and dissected.
Groklaw should make an excellent resource for decades to come.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: gumnos on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:36 PM EDT |
there are a couple accidentally-anonymous posts signed "gumnos" as
well that you're welcome to as well.
-gumnos[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:36 PM EDT |
I haven't made many comments, I've mostly read what PJ and others have done,
wonderfully well and thorough.
Whatever comments I've contributed in any small way I allow for use by the LOC.
Mark
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:37 PM EDT |
I agree with what to this point seems to be a general sentiment of Yes. My only
concerns would be around issues that have been discussed here previously.
Does the Library of Congress use DRM like the British Library does?
What formats will the content be made available in. .PDF, .DOC, .ODF, .DOCX ???
Or will it simply be an archive copy of the HTML site?
Does this concern anybody else? On balance I'd have say Yes anyway as I think
Groklaw is an incredibly valuable resource.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: sgtrock on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:40 PM EDT |
No more need be said. :) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:40 PM EDT |
Will anonymous user postings be included?
Since you cannot attribute anonymous to a particular person, do you consider the
comments to be in the public domain?
How can you ask permission for comments posted anonymously if you do not know
who said it?
Of course, I am fine with my anonymous comments being in the Library of
Congress, but I have no way to show you that my comments are mine.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: talexb on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:41 PM EDT |
Absolutely -- I'll be proud to look back at Groklaw in 25
years time and remember how important this site was at
shining a bright light on SCO's actions.
I haven't commented here many times, or significantly, but
I've had a link to Groklaw as part of my .sig on Perlmonks
for the last couple of years as my way to pass along news.
And I'm all for Digging For The Truth, whatever it may be.
YES!!!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Steve Allen on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:42 PM EDT |
Even though I haven't contributed anything particularly deep, you may distribute
my comments in any way you wish.
---
Music is Life
Life is Love
Love is Music
Music is Life[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:42 PM EDT |
I have more or six categories written by me:
1. Totally anonymous
2. Using Alias_1 as a signature, not logged in
3. Using Alias_2 as a signature, not logged in
4. Using Alias_2 or 3, not logged in
5. Using Alias_1 as a signature and logged in
6. Using Alias_2 as a signature and logged in
(Quite a few of which I am embarrassed about...)
However, which of the above categories need I decide about?
/IMANAL aka IMANAL_TOO etc[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:43 PM EDT |
I never managed to create an account and I only have a couple of comments, but
my feel is that comments ought to be included. Those of trolls too, all the
silly and clumsy attempts at muddling the waters are an essential part to
understand the motives behind Groklaw's following. Detractors may say that
Groklaws's user comments are skewed, but if this is so, why don't we have just
as many users defending SCO somewhere else?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tyche on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:45 PM EDT |
PJ,
You have received awards including one that was quite scholarly. This goes
beyond even that. This is being archived by the ones who know how to do the
best possible to make an archive that will last for a very long time. This is
quite an honor to you for what you have achieved here. Congratulations.
That said, I feel as most (if not all) of the others when I say that you should
accept this honor, and that it should be complete with all the comments.
Therefore:
I, Craig A. Eddy (aka Tyche), do hereby release any copyright rights and
prerogatives for any comments I have made on this site, past, present, or
future, to Pamela Jones (aka PJ) as equitable tender for the instructional and
entertainment value of the work she has done in creating and maintaining the
site known as Grolkaw (http:www.groklaw.net). To which declaration I do affix
my name.
Craig A. Eddy (Tyche)
---
"The Truth shall Make Ye Fret"
"TRUTH", Terry Pratchett[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:45 PM EDT |
Yes, include all of us anonymous posters. Just don't reveal our posting IP's.
k?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: micheal on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:50 PM EDT |
I am in favor of all comments being released to the Library of Congress with no
access restrictions. I also see no reason to postpone until the (never ending)
end of the SCO saga. Everything is already publicly available.
---
LeRoy
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mtew on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:50 PM EDT |
I've made a fool of myself a few time, mostly when off my anti-depressant
medication, but that's life. I am willing to 'let it all hang out' and in full
public view.
However, there is some stuff that is not for public display, but should almost
certainly be available to qualified researchers since there are significant
problems associated with the material.
The first set, with only minor problems, is the censored material. The material
deleted because it violated the sites rules. While this material is not for
public consumption, it really should be available to accredited researchers. It
would provide valuable information on the management of disent.
The second set of material that should only be available to qualified
researchers is the improperly redacted and other improperly released materials.
Again, very valuable, but there are liability issues attached to any record
containing this material.
---
MTEW[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Kevin on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:52 PM EDT |
Try to make the case that archiving the site is fair
use of the commenters' material. Asking permission may dilute that claim down
the road because it could be taken as evidence that you believed the use wasn't
fair.
So: If you need my permission, YES. But you don't need it.
---
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin (P.S. My surname is not McBride!)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Defend fair use! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:22 PM EDT
|
Authored by: speedy314 on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:53 PM EDT |
Two questions
1) Under what license would the materials be available from the Library of
Congress
2) Since the articles themselves are under a Creative Commons (BY NC ND 3.0),
couldn't they be included regardless of PJ's wishes so long as they met the
terms of the license? (Ignoring for a moment PJ's retained moral rights by the
license)
---
-
"Ancora Imparo" (I am still learning) -- Michaelangelo[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jsoulejr on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:53 PM EDT |
n/t [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jsoulejr on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:54 PM EDT |
n/t [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bugstomper on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:55 PM EDT |
Clearly the Anonymous postings can be included. You have my permission for
anything posted under this nym.
However, I don't think that it will be wieldly for this thread to collect a
permission post from every registered user. Would it make sense to have a way of
polling registered members, or ask for emails? Or would you decide based on the
obvious majority in favor in this thread that you will go ahead but provide an
opt-out option?
I think that if you do include comments that you make it part of the privacy
policy of the site that by posting a comment the author agrees to give you the
necessary rights so that you don't have to ask for special permissions to
include them in the archive. I would not recommend complicating matters by
having an opt-out once you decide that comments are in general publishable in
the archive.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jsoulejr on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:55 PM EDT |
Hope I got it right.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: LocoYokel on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:58 PM EDT |
If any of you wish to indicate disagreement with this plan please do so here to
make it easier on PJ to count them. Just to avoid confusion over this thread, I
have voted yes.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- No Thread Here, - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 05:08 PM EDT
- you archive all comments or none of them - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 07:53 PM EDT
- you archive all comments or none of them - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 09:25 PM EDT
- you archive all comments or none of them - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 09:43 PM EDT
- you... - Authored by: symbolset on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 10:14 PM EDT
- you... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 10:31 PM EDT
- you... - Authored by: symbolset on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 11:13 PM EDT
- you... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 11:25 PM EDT
- you... - Authored by: symbolset on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 11:23 PM EDT
- you... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 11:40 PM EDT
- you... - Authored by: wvhillbilly on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 12:24 AM EDT
- you... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 12:53 AM EDT
- You don't want comments added to the archive - Authored by: LocoYokel on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 10:59 PM EDT
- Tally - Authored by: stegu on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 07:31 AM EDT
- Tally - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 08:56 AM EDT
- Tally - Authored by: Scott_Lazar on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 09:46 PM EDT
- Tally - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 10 2010 @ 02:19 AM EDT
|
Authored by: cschoell on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:59 PM EDT |
What a great honor, PJ! I think information wants to be free and if I ever
embarrassed myself here, it's already out there. I think you should make it
available to anyone for the sake of posterity.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: AceBtibucket on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:59 PM EDT |
Yup, very much strongly in favor. And, I would recommend that we include
everything[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: seanlynch on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:02 PM EDT |
I have only contributed one or two articles and my answer is yes.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:02 PM EDT |
I think articles & comments should be published, warts 'n all.
But perhaps not for the members-only articles. The author can choose best about
the article (mostly PJ I guess), but the comments may have been left with the
expectation of it being slightly more private.
I still think it's fine, but maybe not for everyone.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: derobert on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:03 PM EDT |
Yes to everything.
It's all out in public anyway.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:03 PM EDT |
You are a farce give it up...... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:04 PM EDT |
Whatever was written here, by anybody, cannot be denied.
It can only be put
in perspective.
That's why I propose to let them have
it all.
Although I have no standing, not being from the USA,
not
having an account anymore (I think), though on the other
hand having
been an avid daily reader and follower of
Groklaw since I think it must be
2003, please allow me
to use the first person plural:
We're about
openness, aren't we.
bjd
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:07 PM EDT |
Lets hope you can get an award I wonder who would show up....We all know you
dont exist. Hiding behind your web site I would pay to see you accept an award
for living a lie since you created this joke of a web site..[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Trolls are back - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:22 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:07 PM EDT |
PJ, you have to do this, for Linux, for the record, for history. You have to
archive the articles.
I give full permission for PJ to use all of my comments in any way, including
the Library of Congress thing.
If anyone wants otherwise on their own comments, I have a question: Suppose PJ
just sent her articles to the Library of Congress. Suppose some bright
researcher there saw various places where PJ, in an article, mentioned in an
update that a comment had raised a point that was worth adding to the article.
Now the researcher wants to see the comments. But they aren't in the Library of
Congress archive. What does said researcher do? Go to Groklaw, of course,
where the comments are still there, forever (or until ibiblio dies). So, not
archiving the comments to the Library of Congress just makes them a bit more
difficult to read, but won't slow down any halfway serious researcher. So, what
would be the point in not including the comments?
MSS2[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dwiget001 on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:07 PM EDT |
And that's all I have to say. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:08 PM EDT |
Going forward, my biggest fear are those that would want immortal glory archived
at the LOC with troll posts. PJ has done a decent job of getting those posts
that are way out of line removed, but it is possible that they might not be
removed in time before the next scan takes place by the LOC.
There are also some posts that some users might not be proud of making (myself
included), and we wish they were removed shortly after they were posted, but we
don't have any method of a user removing their own post in a timely manner. Of
course, that "feature" could also be abused by trolls.
Even though the webite states "Comments are owned by the individual
posters", if I cannot remove my comment, I don't own it, although I am
still responsible for the posting of it. I think that once a comment is made,
it is a part of the website and so all comments should be included in this
archiving project. You have my vote to include them all, including mine. Of
course, I would prefer to have my comments attached to my original account, but
until then, I will continue to sign them with:
-the former DodgeRules-
(I may not always agree, but I will never hide behind an anonymous post like the
trolls do.)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dracoverdi on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:13 PM EDT |
Yes.
It is a wonderful part of our country's history, both because of the importance
of the record of the SCO litigation, and because it records the amazing
cooperative effort that became Groklaw.
If they make a movie out of it, they can call it:
"The Strange Case Of The Red Dress"
---
The problem with ignorance is that the afflicted are unaware of their ailment[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:18 PM EDT |
Yes [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: inode_buddha on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:24 PM EDT |
Sure, archive the entire thing. I would like to see a special area for the
actual PDF's with their corresponding transcripts though at the LoC.
---
-inode_buddha
"When we speak of free software,
we are referring to freedom, not price"
-- Richard M. Stallman[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Sure, go ahead - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 05:25 PM EDT
- Sure, go ahead - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 07:11 PM EDT
|
Authored by: emk on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:24 PM EDT |
YES
emk[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:25 PM EDT |
Lots of anon posts from fixed IP, so identifiable - go for it. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:26 PM EDT |
I can of course only speak for myself, not for the other posters here (and
certainly not for PJ); however, for myself, I hereby give permission to the
Library of Congress to include any or all of my posts.
---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffe, "Sports Night"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: w30 on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:29 PM EDT |
Yes to everything now and future.
---
Yes, I dual boot but both are Linux distributions. One to use and one to play
with and experiment on :=)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:29 PM EDT |
Even if google doesn't index comments, anyone can come here and search the site,
including comments. Therefore, I think we should allow the whole thing to be
archived and viewed by anyone. It is not as if the audience for Library of
Congress archives is huge.
Perhaps just as google is prevented from indexing comments here, would that be
maintained for this archive?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:31 PM EDT |
Hi there.
I just thought about what future generation might be interested in from
groklaw.
Groklaw is - in my eyes - a historic project in many points and with world wide
relation and therfore important for future research.
Jurists, Economists, Sociologists just to name a few.
Given a scientific theme, there can come up quantifiable questions on traffic by
topic, regional distribution or whatever.
Generally asked, are there any cumulated statistics available? (I have not
looked for yet)
And further: is it worth to archive logfiles, and if so,
what about privacy, anonymized data or logfile locking for let us say next 100
years and a public release then?
see also: important stuff: Your IP address will be recorded, but NOT made
public.
But none of us will care in 100 years.
Best regards from Munich
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ptraci on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:33 PM EDT |
The few comments I've made have been trivial. I don't care if they get archived
somewhere or not. I do think it would be a shame to leave out those comments by
others that have filled out my understanding of the workings of our justice
system. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Leg on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:34 PM EDT |
. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: hopbine on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:34 PM EDT |
Why not - anyone can look at Groklaw itself [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: RPN on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:34 PM EDT |
Unquestionably yes, full access.
It's out there anyway but this is a way to guarantee it survives and I do think
it matters sites like this are preserved officially. (Here in the UK the British
Library is currently consulting on how to do a similar thing and I wish them
well because it does matter we preserve at least a real selection.) Silly as
some of my comments may seem in hindsight, it is that very human character and
interaction that is part of what makes it important to preserve. People can look
back and see from the comments how groups were thinking, responding to issues
etc.
So PJ if you need my permission then you have it. Full public access.
Congratulations on being asked too!
Richard.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: xtifr on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:36 PM EDT |
The Internet Archive is already associated with the Smithsonian; it's
interesting that the Library of Congress seems to feel the need to create its
own separate archives. Still, when it comes to keeping records, I suppose
redundancy can be a good thing. Doubly good in this case, since it can
sometimes catch sites like GL that aren't on the Archive. Anyway I've always
been in the minority that was in favor of having Groklaw archived and indexed,
so obviously I'm still in favor in this instance.
---
Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for it makes them soggy and hard to
light.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jbb on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:37 PM EDT |
The more backups the better. Congrats PJ.
---
You just can't win with DRM.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: NZheretic on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:37 PM EDT |
The SCO Group legal actions are worthy of deep inspection by those involved
in legal profession for perpetuity.
Since this may involve putting a copy of the content onto Hard drive for direct
shipping, could you also forward said copies of Groklaw to the US Federal Trade
Commission, US Securities and Exchange Commission, Various Bar associations
and any other agencies responsible for dealing with issues such as fraud and
antitrust violations?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: nola on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:38 PM EDT |
Did they ask for the Red Dress to be included in the Museum of American
History?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:40 PM EDT |
Of course.
I am very much in awe of the whole Groklaw effort.
Even if some Groklaw member once tracked my IP number and thought I was a
WELL KNOWN REALLY EVIL BELGIAN. Since in reality I'm a total unknown, only
slightly tarnished and that only on bad days (albeit, living in Belgium). That
was
a bit of a bummer, but I got over it, I think.
I do have a cat, though... mwohahahahaaaaa[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: codermotor on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:40 PM EDT |
I have nothing to hide or be ashamed about in any of the few comments I have
posted. Even when I was wrong. I consider this a public forum anyway so it's
really a moot point now anyway.
Let 'em have it all, I say. If someone
would rather the world not know what they think or thought, they should have
given that more consideration before they hit the Submit button. Again, it's too
late now anyway, since it's already here. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: cybervegan on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:43 PM EDT |
The comments are very important to understanding the background of the
articles,
the surrounding opinions and discussion. I think it all needs to go in there.
We told you that what you were doing was important, those times when you nearly
quit.
We know it's taken a chunk out of you, but you keep on going, because you know
it is needed.
And so, you see, the recognition keeps flooding in.
Congratulations, PJ, and thankyou for sticking it out!
Regards,
-cybervegan
---
Software source code is a bit like underwear - you only want to show it off in
public if it's clean and tidy. Refusal could be due to embarrassment or shame...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bb5ch39t on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:43 PM EDT |
Way to go! Full steam ahead. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:45 PM EDT |
Right back to the beginn
ing of Groklaw [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:46 PM EDT |
It has come to our attention that millions and millions of lines of IP have been
stolen from our subsidary Trolls&Astroturfers Inc., and placed into the
comments section. Although some of our IP has subsequently been removed, other
parts have been fed.
We own the Troll++ languages, and have
licensed them out many times.
Without our valuable IP, Groklaw
would have just remained an obscure website. Our valuable IP must have been
inserted into the comments by a team of IBM lawyers, adding enterprise support
for Multithreaded Trolling, and making Groklaw the site it is now.
We have clear proof of this, located in a highly secure briefcase. We are
willing to show proof, and identify Troll posts to anyone willing to sign our
NDA (which forbids commenting on the quality or lack thereof, of our claims). We
refuse to identify our IP in the comments without an NDA, for proof denies
faith, and without faith our claims are nothing.
We must protect
our valuable IP, however we understand the desire of others to continue to use
our valuable IP. Therefore, we have decided to offer a mutually beneficial
agreement, where if you hurry to accept our GPL-incompatible End User Soul
Transfer Agreement for the small price of $699, we agree not to sue you
(unless we change our mind) for downloading any archived content from the
Library of Congress which does or doesn't contain our valuable IP.
This is a limited time only offer, so hurry.
\Plc (Guvf vf
n cnebql.)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: AH1 on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 04:49 PM EDT |
Yes to all. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: cpeterson on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 05:02 PM EDT |
Absolutely.
If we try to withhold our history from the future, we merely grant our enemies
leave to supplant it with distortion.
cpeterson, WINAL[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Sunny Penguin on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 05:04 PM EDT |
My vote is for everything.
As far as I am concerned, PJ owns all of my Groklaw comments.
/Do we need to draft an APA? LOL...
---
EOD is a science of vague assumptions based on debatable data taken from
inconclusive experiments with instruments of problematic accuracy by persons of
questio[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: scooterJRT on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 05:05 PM EDT |
Certainly yes, and congratulations PJ on the many recognitions of the value of
what you started--and maintained with great energy and integrity.
Re comments, I'd suggest that they _all_ should be included, even those that
are trivial (as were most of mine.) The LoC is viewing this as a resource for
research; omission of full comment threads and external links such as News
Picks would greatly diminish Groklaw's research value.
James Beckwith[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 05:06 PM EDT |
I have been an anonymous cowherder since the beginning of the site. I think it
is good to archive the site, but the comments are a mixed bag. I vote for this
option:
"One possible middle road would be to allow the comments only in the
collection available only to Congress, but not to the offsite public."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: gfreeves on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 05:08 PM EDT |
I've been mostly a lurker, but I have read almost all of the comments for years.
It'll be quite a sociological masterpiece for the researchers to study. I want
the world to know it all! And it may prevent something like this ever
happening again! Yes, you have my permission! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsi on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 05:08 PM EDT |
Redacting ANYTHING will only alter history. It is important to preserve all
including comments. I have nothing to hide.
Congratulations PJ!
Rick
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 05:11 PM EDT |
Is there anything we can do with older materials for de-trollification before
archiving? Is that even a worthwhile goal, or should troll-stomping be
considered part of what we do?
Apart from that question, I'm decidedly in the all-in, open access camp[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Prototrm on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 05:16 PM EDT |
A definitive "yes".
This is the ultimate victory for Groklaw in that the truth will be permanently
preserved for the future, as will the dedication and perseverance of everyone
here, most especially PJ.
Ordinary people *can* make a difference!
---
"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the
exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsmith on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 05:19 PM EDT |
That would get my vote.
After all, that is already what one gets when reading Groklaw now. Personally I
don't see the need for further restrictions.
---
Intellectual Property is an oxymoron.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: darkonc on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 05:22 PM EDT |
There's nothing said here that I'm too embarrassed about to let it go on the
public record.. --- Powerful, committed communication. Touching the jewel
within each person and bringing it to life.. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: eggplant37 on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 05:24 PM EDT |
Knowing I've had an active part here since the Daimler suit, I'll
only say this: This is the reason I thought I should help. I'm
glad to have been a part. Yes, emphatically yes, allow this to
happen.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: charlie Turner on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 05:26 PM EDT |
I'm in with everything. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: hAckz0r on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 05:27 PM EDT |
PJ,
I can't say how happy I am that they would think to honour you in such a
way. This is the moment you have been waiting for as I see it, and the chance to
say that you are more than just a legitimate and worthy Blogger. Your hard work
has paid off in ways you probably never realized, in that so many people now
look up to you, and respect your work. It should be archived as a piece of
American History, and held up as a model for others to follow. You have single
handedly lead the way to fill the void between the two worlds of the Legal
Justice system and the World of Technology, and the benefits are now just being
realized by people other than us geeks. This is your day to be honoured by
historians and future generations, far beyond beyond just the obscure wayback
archive, so please keep up the good work.
Please do look towards the future,
in that you will now have a slightly bigger soap box to stand on. You will have
even more opportunity to discuss the meaning of "standards" and then even more
influence to see that the Government archive system actually understands them
too.
The only question I would raise about adding to the archive would be
pertaining to the topics in the 'members only', and whether you think those
should be included. I'll simply trust your judgement on that one. No one should
have felt that what they said there should be any more or less private, as I
felt that it was more or less just preparation for an upcoming story without the
anonymous hecklers added to be a distraction. It's your call. Its your archive.
Oh, can we take up a collection for the "Red Dress Fund" yet? I just want
to see a photograph of the one you choose, on a hanger is good enough for me.
Its symbolic you know...
--- DRM - As a "solution", it solves
the wrong problem; As a "technology" its only 'logically' infeasible. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: comms-warrior on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 05:34 PM EDT |
To get a complete picture, you should include ALL information from the site.
Every comment, every feeling and emotion as articulated in words.
That's my opinion.
Chris.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Jimbob0i0 on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 05:34 PM EDT |
Vote from me for archive everything open to all for eternity so that the next
'SCO' that tries something with Linux IP can be pointed to the congress
collection of what happened last time ;)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: IANALitj on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 05:36 PM EDT |
I have already given my personal response as a minor player -- yes, include
everything, and as public and for as long as you wish.
Since this seems to be the overwhelming consensus, I think there should be a
thread or perhaps an entire new article to collect any non-acquiescences.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tpassin on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 05:40 PM EDT |
Pamela, you have my permission to archive with the Library Of Congress or
elsewhere, all my comments to any material that has appeared or will appear on
Groklaw.
I think it would be a very good thing for all of the site to be archived.
Surely everyone who was moved to post must have known that all the material
would potentially be viewed by any member of the public. So I hope that
everyone will give permission, too.
Great work, PJ!
---
Tom Passin[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 05:40 PM EDT |
Will those things be included also? How close are the Comes Exhibits to being
done?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ursus_Orribilus on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 05:49 PM EDT |
Absolutely! Every word and link-- and all comments. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: euler on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 05:52 PM EDT |
I can't seem to find what comments I've made (I don't think there's many), but
I'd be fine with having any of them included.
+1[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 05:59 PM EDT |
I'd be confused about the logic of anyone who had posted
comments to a public blog and then was somehow too shy to
have their public comments made public :-)
You can certainly pass on everything I've ever said.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: drh on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 06:00 PM EDT |
Send it all in!
---
Just another day...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Christian on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 06:00 PM EDT |
I am not sure where the "only to Congress" idea came from. This issue is
whether the archive is only available to patrons physically at the Library of
Congress in Washington or if it will also be available over the web. Anyone can
walk into the Library of Congress and see almost anything there. The letter
explains it:
The Library will make this collection available to
researchers onsite at Library facilities. The Library also wishes to make the
collection available to offsite researchers by hosting the collection on the
Library's public access Web site.
I have never done any research
there, but I have wandered in just to look at the amazing
architecture.
Regardless, PJ and Groklaw can do whatever they want with any
of my old posts (or future ones).
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: seantellis on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 06:01 PM EDT |
Of course. This will be a fascinating historical record of a corporate
implosion.
Sean Ellis.
---
Sean Ellis (groklaw@moteprime.remove-this.org)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: songmaster on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 06:03 PM EDT |
Heck yeah, with comments. It would be a tragedy if everything here were lost to
posterity (Hello, posterity!).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: fava on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 06:03 PM EDT |
I have not posted in years, but I heartily agree that everything must be
archived.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jacks4u on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 06:08 PM EDT |
Yes! All of it.
and Congratulations. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ysesq on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 06:13 PM EDT |
by all means. everything should be there in the interest of transparency.
---
---
Yohann Sulaiman[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 06:19 PM EDT |
I do not approve any of my comments to be used in such manner. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Yes. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 06:22 PM EDT
- NO again - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 11:26 PM EDT
- NO again - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 12:42 AM EDT
|
Authored by: billposer on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 06:20 PM EDT |
Include it all. I certainly wouldn't have posted comments here that I didn't
intend to be publicly accessible.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: venn on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 06:22 PM EDT |
Everything should be included, it is what defines this site. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Christian on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 06:24 PM EDT |
I am not sure where the "only to Congress" idea came from. This issue is
whether the archive is only available to patrons physically at the Library of
Congress in Washington or if it will also be available over the web. Anyone can
walk into the Library of Congress and see almost anything there. The letter
explains it:
The Library will make this collection available to
researchers onsite at Library facilities. The Library also wishes to make the
collection available to offsite researchers by hosting the collection on the
Library's public access Web site.
I have never done any research
there, but I have wandered in just to look at the amazing
architecture.
Regardless, PJ and Groklaw can do whatever they want with any
of my old posts (or future ones).
PS: I tried to post this a few times, and
it didn't go through. If duplicates show up later, that is why. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dan_stephans on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 06:25 PM EDT |
I don't think the record is complete or useful without all the comments. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 06:26 PM EDT |
Does that run on Linux?
Who holds copy/publishing rights?
Do they use open formats/standards?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Nigel on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 06:29 PM EDT |
Definitely. Comments as well.
Congratulations, PJ - It's the least you deserve after all the hard work and
hassles.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kjb on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 06:33 PM EDT |
Yes, absolutely. Open and free to everyone.
And Congratulations, PJ, thanks for the great leadership.
---
keithdotburt at gmail dot com
Copyright info in bio
"No! Try not. Do, or do not. There is no try."
- Yoda[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: talldad on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 06:40 PM EDT |
I give permission for all my comments to be publicly available for historical
research purposes as requested by the Library of Congress.
PJ, I see so many enthusiastic Yes answers but I hope this bit of my response is
not just a pernickety bit of pedantry.
Across the years and thousands upon thousands of postings, how do you manage the
problem of
a) those who choose to say No to their comments going public
b) those who don't respond at all?
and
c) any differences in the levels of permission you receive?
---
John Angelico
Down Under fan &
OS/2 SIG Co-Ordinator[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 06:47 PM EDT |
Most or all of my posts over the last 6+ years have been anonymous (from a few
different locations, some of which have dynamic IPs unfortunately), and none of
them is particularly important or interesting. But I definitely grant PJ
whatever permissions are needed to complete this archiving.
I believe the whole site should be archived, including all of the comments (and
anonymous comments too).
Even though the copyright on a comment belongs to the person who posted it, I
think the very act of posting it to a public Internet blog should give implied
permission for it to be archived in a public, permanent form. Legally I don't
know if it holds up, but morally I think PJ will be completely justified if she
allows the whole site to be archived including all of the comments.
Even if she wanted to print them into a book and sell it commercially, I can't
see any reason not to allow that![ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Read the ToS - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 11:31 PM EDT
|
Authored by: hans on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 06:48 PM EDT |
First, yes, publish it all, for anyone to see.
And second, its cool seeing all the low UID's.
Regards,
Hans[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Shadow Wrought on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 06:48 PM EDT |
"I hereby grant permission to the Library of Congress to archive the Web
site identified above for inclusion in the Library's collection of Web
materials."
And...
"I hereby grant permission to the Library of Congress to provide public
access to the archived versions of my website to researchers and patrons via the
Library's public Web site."
I'm cool with both. If the majority goes for both main stories and comments you
might add an opt-out clause for anyone who wishes their comments removed. It
might prove difficult if other people were quoting from it, but I think that's
just something you have to live with.
Frankly, you are posting to a public site which is free and open to the entire
world at any given time. It only makes sense for the LoC to archive in total,
just like it is, IMHO.
That plus future generations will forever be asking the question: just who is
that briliant Shadow Wrought, and why didn't he post more of his enlightened
reasoning?
Or not:-)
---
"It's a summons." "What's a summons?" "It means summon's in trouble." -- Rocky
and Bullwinkle[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ciaran on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 06:57 PM EDT |
Yes, I grant permission for this. (Ciarán
O'Riordan) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kh on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 06:58 PM EDT |
While I'm happy for my comments to be included under a cc license is this going
to be a democratic decision or consensus or can people who disagree withdraw
their comments?
I assume anonymous commenters don't get that option as they effectively gave
their comments away to PJ.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 07:00 PM EDT |
I'll start them. But I'm not logged in.
--Celtic_hackr
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Vote Yes - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 07:01 PM EDT
- Yes! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 07:04 PM EDT
- Vote No - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 07:03 PM EDT
- Vote yesno - Authored by: stegu on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 07:54 AM EDT
|
Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 07:07 PM EDT |
Hey PJ!
Yes, all comments, including mine. Yes, that includes the ones where I look
like a chump. After all, some people may have questions reflected by my thought
process, and me getting schooled can help teach them.
To say nothing of the bad jokes, Usenet taglines, and so on. ;-)
Dobre utka,
The Blue Sky Ranger[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dmarker on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 07:13 PM EDT |
made MOG famous and eternal !!!.
If that proves true I regret it :) :) :)
DSM[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ThrPilgrim on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 07:15 PM EDT |
The consensus appears to be overwhelmingly yes with comments.
There may be problems with Anonymous comments, however as long as Anonymous
means Anonymous I don't think that will matter.
One thing I think needs to be sorted is should articles with active comment's
threads be archived?
I personally think no, mainly because as a user with an account I get the option
to delete comments for a wile and would not want a comment I deleted turning up
on another website.
I doubt that the bot will have an account so member's only articles would not
get archived while still in that state.
---
Beware of him who would deny you access to information for in his heart he
considers himself your master.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ghost on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 07:17 PM EDT |
In the footer, you have this;
------------------------
Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2010 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective
owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.
PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )
------------------------
If this inclusion is accepted, i would suggest that you include a line that
"by writing on this site, you, the contributor, grant an irrevocable
license to the library of congress to copy and republish your posts, in any
form, and by any means." or some similar wording to the same effect.
This, just to exclude any future problems with any disputes about this subject,
and make this exclusion.
This doesn't mean the authors will lose their rights, just offer a license to
the library..
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: juliac on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 07:19 PM EDT |
It's already all publicly available here, also a good chunk on the wayback
machine, and probably other public and private archives, it's the nature of the
beast. The situation might be slightly different if the proposed use were for
private gain, but I don't see any reason for anyone to object to archiving at
the Library of Congress.
---
Have you contributed to Groklaw lately?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: egan on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 07:19 PM EDT |
Yes, everything, and open to everyone.
Absolutely, positively and
without a doubt. Our Open letter to Darl McBride alone is an historic
document.
So is the explanation of computation theory for lawyers, as
just one exemplary item. And everything else, to a lesser degree. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: sjohnson on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 07:24 PM EDT |
I'll keep it nice an simple.
Yes.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: john-from-ct on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 07:25 PM EDT |
PJ:
"I hereby grant permission to the Library of Congress to archive the Web
site identified above for inclusion in the Library's collection of Web
materials."
"I hereby grant permission to the Library of Congress to provide public
access to the archived versions of my website to researchers and patrons via the
Library's public Web site."
For my meager contributions.
---
Just another greybeard geek![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: stats_for_all on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 07:27 PM EDT |
"I hereby grant permission to the Library of Congress to provide public access
to the archived versions of my website to researchers and patrons via the
Library's public Web site."
Articles, Comments, Documents, search cache,
and layouts, include it all.
Technically, how archivable is Geeklog PHP.
Will future implementation break the database > parseable html process.
Is the archiving a specialized spider of the site, or a mirror of the geeklog
file system. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: STrRedWolf on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 07:28 PM EDT |
Archiving of comments by STrRedWolf is granted. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: /Arthur on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 07:29 PM EDT |
I think the LOC can buy a hammer and a chisel
and start to hammer the whole story in to granite.
Gratz PJ
/Arthur[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 07:31 PM EDT |
Although they are not worth much, please include all my posts. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: lordshipmayhem on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 07:34 PM EDT |
For whatever my occasional posts will add to the story, you have my permission
to include them in the Library of Congress, accessible for all time.
Gawrsh, I'd be published then!!! ^_^[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: hcg50a on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 07:39 PM EDT |
Yes, include articles and comments -- everything. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Scott_Lazar on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 07:41 PM EDT |
Simple opt-in for those who wish to contribute comments - update your logonid
comments to give permission. Between now and when the information is to be
given to LOC, at regular intervals, publish a short reminder article to prod the
stragglers. Anyone who doesn't opt-in is left behind.
---
Scott
-------------------------
LINUX - VISIBLY superior!
--------------------------------------[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 07:41 PM EDT |
Definitely! I say go for it! Future generations definitely need to know.
-Vivin Paliath[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 07:46 PM EDT |
Seat of government.
You have a large library.
Groklaw joins it soon.
---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffe, "Sports Night"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mattw on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 07:49 PM EDT |
Add another to the yes pile. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Einhverfr on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 07:51 PM EDT |
Sounds like a great opportunity!
Sure, also if comments are archived, include my comments....[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: MDT on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 07:57 PM EDT |
Sure PJ, anything I posted you can contribute.
---
MDT[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: proceng on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 08:11 PM EDT |
The entire site from the home page all the way through the
exhibits should be made available (with personally identifiable
information redacted from the profiles). When someone signs
their post with their name, they are giving the site permission to make said
information available.
By making the entire site available,
there are resources included that may not be available anywhere
else, but are important for a complete understanding of what Groklaw
is, what it represents and most importantly what it means to be a member of a
community that is dedicated to educating lawyers about geeks and geeks
about the law.
With the inclusion of the more esoteric parts of the site
(Grokdoc, the GPL, the Court system etc) researchers can see an entire
educational resource built from one person's dream into a
powerful tool.
Groklaw, under Pamela's coaching, has grown from an
interesting experiment into a resource that puts most major publications
dedicated to news of legal and technical interest to shame. This is a site that
should be required reading for anybody who aspires to
accuracy in journalism.
Even when one of us is mistaken in a
specific area, the others gently (or not so gently) try to convince them to
keep an open mind, rather than force them to change. That keeps us
strong. Pamela keeps us honest. We do our part by participating in this grand
experiment that has now been noticed by all who seek to understand the world as
it pertains to technology and the law.
Please, PJ, make sure that the LOC is
going to provide this information along side the other tidbits of history that
will explain to those who come after what one dedicated person
can accomplish as a leader.
Take a bow, you earned
it. The rest of us are the supporting cast, because without
you as the champion this site would never have gained the
respect that it richly deserves.
For my part, while I have
made mistakes in some of my posts, I stand by what I have said.
Feel free to
include any and all of my posts in whatever format you deem appropriate.
Electronically signed release on it's way. --- And ye shall know the truth,
and the truth shall make you free.
John 8:32(King James Version) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ilde on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 08:14 PM EDT |
Yes, please include my modest participations. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 08:23 PM EDT |
So how many GBs does it take to include the sum total of Groklaw? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: xetheriel on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 08:28 PM EDT |
This thrilled me when I saw it, and would love nothing more than to be a part of
it! What an honour!
You have an enthusiastic yes here. :)
X
---
Xetheriel
The wheel of time forever turns, and history repeats.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 08:34 PM EDT |
I'm not sure I've seen as much "good government"
schnookism as this in one
place in my life. Hello?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 08:35 PM EDT |
PJ you have my permission to use any of my postings I've made as you see fit. I
ask only that you impress upon the Library of Congress, that the Library
maintain a non proprietary access method. It may be understood but this is an
occasion worthy of commemorating and rededication.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: vb on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 08:48 PM EDT |
I'd guess the Groklaw is historic in the fact that Groklaw is probably the first
instance of complex litigation documented on-line (using both text and HTML).
Add to that the fact that almost all legal proceedings of the SCO saga have been
analyzed and debated on-line.
Groklaw is a national treasure to legal education in this country. Until some
other case is as well documented, analyzed and debated on-line, Groklaw is
without peer.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tjwhaynes on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 08:52 PM EDT |
Yes - everything. I give permission for my meagre contributions to be added to
the collection.
---
Anything I say is my opinion and does not necessarily reflect that of IBM Canada[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dmomara on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 08:58 PM EDT |
Yes. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: thorpie on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 09:00 PM EDT |
This is one subject that really does highlight the lunacy of our copyright
system.
Comments are an integral part of the website. The insights that
comments have provided have often been stunning, they provide much of the meat
to PJ's skeleton.
The kernel insight that a single comment provides is
generally not replicated. If others think along the same lines they either do
not add further comment or they add sub-comments to the comment containing the
kernel of the insight. It appears to be rare that a comment appears that has a
kernel insight that no-one else has thought of.
Allowing a contributor
the right to delete their comments raises problems. What do you do with the
sub-comments, without their parent they are completely out of context? Given
that the kernel insight of a comment is not generally uniquely a thought of the
one individual, and that if this individual had not commented then someone else
would have added a comment with the same kernel insight, should the individual
have a right to delete their comment? Deleting their comment removes not only
their expressive verbage but also the kernel insight. This kernel insight would
have been expressed by someone else if the individual had not added their
comment first.
Me, I completely disagree with copyright in any case.
Nemes appear and become entangled and associated with one piece of expressive
verbage. By allowing a person to control their expressive verbage we will often
allow them to exert some control over the associated neme. It is simply
censorship by another name.
--- The memories of a man in his old age
are the deeds of a man in his prime - Floyd, Pink [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 09:01 PM EDT |
All of it, unrestricted, open to all who care to look.
<opinion>
This site has been, is, and almost certainly will continue to be a treasure, and
to serve as an example of "how it should be done".
</opinion>
And to Ms Jones, the great PJ: It is impossible to express my gratitude for
establishing Groklaw. A place you created where we arrive with our varied ideas
and beliefs, and leave with greater understanding.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 09:01 PM EDT |
Everyone of my comments was made knowing that this is a public forum. I'm quite
happy to have everything of mine available both on and off site.
---
Wayne
http://madhatter.ca/[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: froggie on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 09:04 PM EDT |
Any and all posts that I made here were with the understanding that PJ could do
whatever she wished with them.
I don't think that any of my posts are
worth conserving for posterity, but as a minuscule part of the enormous treasure
that is Groklaw, perhaps they are.
Go for it !! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jvillain on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 09:08 PM EDT |
Open got us this far. It would be silly to get off the bus now. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: veatnik on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 09:09 PM EDT |
In all I think the complete record at Groklaw is of great value both from the
content with regards to the primary subject and due to the style of interaction
even when there is occasional disagreement. In all a great example of content
with great value an an example of civil discourse in a medium (the internet)
that all too often fails the civility test elsewhere.
PJ, you did a great job laying down ground rules that make Groklaw a haven in
which I felt comfortable.
Thanks![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: pajamian on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 09:11 PM EDT |
--- Windows is a bonfire, Linux is the sun. Linux only looks
smaller if you lack perspective. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: barbacana on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 09:16 PM EDT |
PJ wrote:
One possible middle road would be to allow the comments
only in the collection available only to Congress, but not to the offsite
public
The Library of Congress is available to the public, not just
Congress. I believe the choice on offer is to make the collection available
onsite only, or to make it available on the web. In either case it would be
available to the public.
It used to be possible for anyone who could
travel to Washington DC to walk into one of the Library of Congress buildings
and read the materials there. Now, access is restricted to people over 16 who
can present suitable ID. The government could easily restrict access in the
future by defining what constitutes "suitable" ID more narrowly than at present;
for example, it could restrict access to US citizens, or to people never
convicted of a felony, or to people not on the no-fly list, etc.
I am in
favor of making the entire contents of Groklaw, including all comments,
available to everybody, i.e. accessible onsite and via the internet. I am
strongly opposed to making the Groklaw comments available if access will
be restricted to onsite access at the Library of Congress.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: brindafella on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 09:18 PM EDT |
I hereby allow any comments by me (brindafella) to be included in the LoC
collection, including for public perusal.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Yes - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 09:25 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 09:22 PM EDT |
Yes, definitely. This is a fantastic example of how to record and follow an
issue, with all things involved.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: elrond_2003 on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 09:24 PM EDT |
"I hereby grant permission to the Library of Congress to provide public
access to
the archived versions of my website to researchers and patrons via the Library's
public Web site."
---
free as in speech.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: afeldspar on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 09:40 PM EDT |
Don't know if anything I've posted here would be on the list to be archived, but
if it is, I certainly give my permission...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tredman on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 09:44 PM EDT |
It's most certainly been a while since I've posted anything, though Groklaw is
still on my daily reading list, no matter how busy I may be. I can't speak for
anybody else, but I have no problem having any of my comments included in that
archive. I don't know how scholarly any of them are, but they're certainly a
tiny part of a very large picture, and I would be proud to have them included.
Tim
---
Tim
"I drank what?" - Socrates, 399 BCE[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: vonbrand on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 09:49 PM EDT |
I understood all my comments were (implicitly) donated to the site (i.e.,
PJ), under the CC license of the site. If this is wrong, I hereby state this
explicitly.
Big problem is that if this isn't so, AFAIU PJ would need the
permission of each and every contributor (even the ubiquitous Anonymous). How
can PJ arrange to collect all those persmissions (either "for all my comments",
or "only for comments X, Y, Z")? Would it have to be in writing (on paper,
signed)?
PJ's articles are under a CC license, so in
principle the LoC shouldn't have to even ask to publish just that...
Nice
mess ;-) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Raymee on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 09:52 PM EDT |
Yes! And everything should be available so far as I'm concerned. Congratulations
on being selected as if anyone deserves it, you do PJ!
---
...and this too, shall pass... (the only real question is WHEN!!!)
PJ has full permission to use my comments as she pleases![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 09:55 PM EDT |
Short Answer: Yes to all, that is Groklaw and Comments, including mine.
Longer Answer: On reviewing some of my comments I have winced a little bit at
one or two, not surprising on reflection, as we certainly didn't think they
would be given this level of attention. That said this is a huge honour for
Groklaw and we really cant say no.
Well done PJ and congratulations, its been a blast :-)
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Tufty on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 09:56 PM EDT |
This has all been produced in the full public vision. I can see no good reason
for restricting something that has already been seen. I have known this when
posting so I see no good reason from excluding my posts from this, even the
squirrel brained ones.
My vote
All in there and open
My comments
All in there and open
---
Linux powered squirrel.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Osvaldo Marques on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 09:57 PM EDT |
Hi PJ!
What a remarkable job you and all groklawers have done on these last
seven years! The world is a better place from the moment Groklaw was
available.
I believe mankind deserves whole Groklaw be available for
generations to come.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 10:10 PM EDT |
Yes, include my mundane remarks...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: afruss on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 10:21 PM EDT |
All posts and comments are important.
I want my children to understand that I saw history being made.
I see myself as a Groklawyer (IANAL).
With a little perspective on what we lived through in the SCO years, it is even
more important to ensure that the entire corpus of Groklaw is available to the
public into the future. Lest it happen again (ok, where it happens again).
Andrew[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: R.A.G. on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 10:24 PM EDT |
P.J. Everything you have done on Groklaw has been about being open with the
truth.
Let them have everything.
The Truth!
The whole truth! and
Nothing but the truth!
It's your blog. We all started as guests. You let us stay and become family.
You've always made the rules. If we didn't like them we were allowed to leave.
Don't stop making the rules.
For the objectors to this proposal. If you didn't want anyone to hear what you
had to say you could have kept your mouth shut and your comments to yourself.
Groklaw is already public and available to anyone who wants to access. All the
Library of Congress is doing is asking to be allowed to maintain that state for
you.
Let them have at it![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dbmuse on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 10:26 PM EDT |
Copy is good. Sharing is good. Removing anything would be bad. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: om1er on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 10:27 PM EDT |
I happily grant permission to have my comments included in any archiving of
Groklaw for the Library of Congress, and that includes for access by the general
public.
I'd also go on record now to say that, seven long years into this saga, we're
still not done, but I hope that SCOG is finally, at some point in the near
future, completely put out of our misery.
---
March 23, 2010 - Judgement day.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Zak3056 on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 10:27 PM EDT |
Definitely, yes, comments included. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: hexdump on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 10:40 PM EDT |
Yes, by all means. (Not that I personally contributed much...)
I'd suggest available to everyone, otherwise what's the point?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: nicholasperez on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 10:41 PM EDT |
You have my permission to my comments. Please let them include everything. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Zarkov on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 10:45 PM EDT |
... it's that every comment counts, and nothing should ever be discarded...
Giving the Lubrary of Congress access to every part of Groklaw to preserve and
publish in full public view for posterity is therefore the only sensible thing
to do...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Kalak on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 10:45 PM EDT |
I am glad to give my permission, under the same CC license as PJ's articles.
As IPs are not displayed on the site, and it says right below this box I'm
typing in that it will not be made public, publishing IP addresses is
"right out" for all.
This discussion brings back memories of is a previous copyright discussion, and
also that some authors are not here to consent (AllParadox, marbux, and I'm sure
there are others who have chosen to leave for whatever reasons). It seems unfair
to publish others' work beyond the scope of Groklaw without consent, and it says
at the bottom of all pages for as long as I can remember that "Comments are
owned by the individual posters."
As much as I'd like to have all of Groklaw be in the Library, it seems that the
only way to respect everyone's copyright is to have the Library take over
hosting of Groklaw from ibiblio, which would merely be a change of providers
(and ibiblio is a digital library, after all)
---
Kalak: I am, and always will be, an idiot.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 10:54 PM EDT |
yes [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jkates on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 10:55 PM EDT |
Let Groklaw outlive Darl. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: belzecue on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 10:56 PM EDT |
Yes for complete archiving. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: enigma_foundry on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 10:56 PM EDT |
I am all for this.
eee_eff
---
enigma_foundry
Ask the right questions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Peter Baker on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 11:03 PM EDT |
Permission to use comments confirmed [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: itsnotme on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 11:14 PM EDT |
Go for it, my comments are all yours. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ftcsm on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 11:15 PM EDT |
I really don't think you'll find opposition to let Congress Library archive it
all, comments included.
Exception may happen on the side of some not too friendly posts we've seen
during all this time. Please check the terms of the site about the restrictions
of use for comments but I really think that if it's exposed on your site, it's
already exposed to the Internet. So no one can really say "I did not
authorize" since no one ever said anything on the contrary when they posted
knowingly that the entire Internet could see the posts. But there can always
happen the "Streisand Effect" (Slashdot term for the kind of situation
like Barbra Streisand speech that she tried to withdraw later).
If you need my permission, granted.
---
------
Faith moves mountains but I still prefer dynamite[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: meissner on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 11:17 PM EDT |
I give permission to archive the posts (including ones where I forgot to log on)
at the Library of Congress.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mwexler on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 11:21 PM EDT |
I hereby grant permission to the Library of Congress to provide public access to
the archived versions of my website to researchers and patrons via the Library's
public Web site.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rkrishnam_can01 on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 11:27 PM EDT |
Congratulations on this great honor PJ. I certainly would support this with all
comments, even though I have been mostly a reader of the comments. In addition
to the articles that you had written, I found most of the comments to be very
enlightening and educational.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DannyB on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 11:32 PM EDT |
You deserve this for your vast efforts.
Very cool. It will outlive SCO and likely also many of us.
You may include anything I have written here, for what little it's worth. :-)
---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mrcreosote on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 11:33 PM EDT |
Yes, comments as well
---
----------
mrcreosote[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: NilsR on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 11:35 PM EDT |
Yes, everything. And open access please.
---
NilsR
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 11:39 PM EDT |
Short answer: Yes. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: darksepulcher on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 11:41 PM EDT |
I'm a serial lurker who rarely has anything of substance to contribute, so take
this one for what it's worth. I'm all in favor of letting them have everything:
insightful comments, fluff comments, trolls, typos, OT meanderings into deep
left field, everything. That's part of the true essence of Groklaw. After all,
what's a beefy steak of substance without a few spices and seasons thrown in for
flavor? :D
---
Had I but time--As this fell Sergeant, Death
Is strict in his arrest--O, I could tell you--
But let it be.
(Hamlet, Act V Scene 2)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: wood gnome on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 11:55 PM EDT |
As this was/is a public forum from the start, I have no objections whatsoever.
Congrats PJ![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tbogart on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 12:00 AM EDT |
Yes, let them have everything. No question. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SteveJohnson on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 12:12 AM EDT |
Yes, yes, yes. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: LaGrosse on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 12:21 AM EDT |
Yes, in toto. Including all the lame comments that I made
anonymously
(I just realized that I'm not sure when I found Groklaw.)
---
Registered Linux User #292956
windows free since 2003[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: sscherin on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 12:24 AM EDT |
Do it.. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 12:28 AM EDT |
It's been a while since I got involved with any of the threads. I do recall
mentioning the "Magic Garden" book way back. Probably when Darl was going on
about sooper sekrit UNIX methods.
I can't recall if I ever officially
registered as a Groklaw user/member but it's obviously OK with me to include any
comments I made over the years.
So where are you going next, PJ? Software
patents? Net Neutrality?
--
Rick [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 12:55 AM EDT |
Clearly there are very few that want to restrict.
If no IP addresses are tied to any particular comment
(which should not be a problem anyway), then it really
comes down to a very small minority of accounts
that may not want their comments archived.
The simple way to deal with that is to allow some time
for those specific user accounts to contact PJ and
make their wishes known.
As to the actual implementation to hide those comments,
that is another issue. One simple way would be to kill
the account. A more elegant way would be to allow
some type of setting on the account, but that leads to
additional implementation issues that may not be fully
effective.
Bottom line, I doubt that there are more than a couple
of dozen accounts that want their comments hidden.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Nice Kitty on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 01:03 AM EDT |
I'm split on this one. Split, that is, between "Yes", and "Heck
Yes".
Go for it, PJ.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: brooker on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 01:11 AM EDT |
Wow! What a wonderful thing for PJ and Groklaw! My vote is absolutely,
positively, no doubt about it...yes! yes! yes! for everything.
:o)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: piskozub on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 01:26 AM EDT |
After all Groklaw is already on the Internet... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: chad on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 01:29 AM EDT |
You may have anything I've contributed. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 01:57 AM EDT |
PLZ TAKE CARE OF THIS COMMENT, IT IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR THE FUTURE OF HUMANITY!
:D[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Alex on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 02:01 AM EDT |
The Library of Congress can use any/all of my comments, stories, etc.
Alex
---
Hey Darl!! Did Ross Perot draw your chart?"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 02:09 AM EDT |
Ok, I hate to promote myself (No, I don't), but I told you this long ago,
Groklaw needs to be preserved for the future:
What
more contemporay items should be in a museum? The Groklaw servers? Why not?!
Preserved for the future!
At last, I'm recognized! I'm
famous! Thanks, congress ;)
--- ______
IMANAL
. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 02:35 AM EDT |
As the dictum in science runs: Publish or perish! And there is no better place
to publish, so please go ahead, full steam, and submit it all. The fact that you
ask permission is for me just the ultimate indication that you have created a
site where a high moral standard is simply to be expected from everyone. This is
another of your amazing achievements!
Best,
stovring[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: wharris on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 02:37 AM EDT |
I vote to put it all in, open to the public. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: n6lv on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 03:08 AM EDT |
Put it all in. All of it. Warts and all. It's history. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 03:14 AM EDT |
Do you have the copyrights?
I would hate to see the LoC dragged through interminable years of legal
wrangling because 'somebody' might claim the copyrights because 'a part of their
name' has once touched this web site.
And then again, maybe that will provide incentive for some much needed reform.
Legislators! I'm looking at you![ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Um... - Authored by: DaveJakeman on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 06:01 AM EDT
- Yeah but... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 06:58 AM EDT
|
Authored by: dio gratia on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 03:26 AM EDT |
Please indicate the News Pick Item in the title
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 03:32 AM EDT |
Pfft, laws. What do they matter compared to groupthink? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 03:54 AM EDT |
I would suggest that the entire website, including comments, be archived by the
Library of Congress, but stipulate that the only access to comments is via the
LoC - i.e the robots.txt or other mechanism specifically requires search engines
to not include the comments. The articles themselves should be open access.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Nonad on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 04:29 AM EDT |
Yes, absolutely you may include what few comments I have made under this
incarnation, but even more importantly those many comments made under my earlier
ID that you banned, "Tomas"...
It is nice of you to recognize in these
questions exactly what you banned me for saying so long ago.
As to the
actual questions...
Acceptance to archive Web site
"I
hereby grant permission to the Library of Congress to archive the Web site
identified above for inclusion in the Library's collection of Web
materials."
Acceptance to provide offsite access
"I hereby grant
permission to the Library of Congress to provide public access to the archived
versions of my website to researchers and patrons via the Library's public Web
site."
I fully agree with allowing
both.
Enjoy,
Tomas [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Winter on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 04:38 AM EDT |
Would it be possible to add a button/switch in the user profile where registered
users can opt-in/opt-out to this LoC indexing and distribution?
If this would be possible, all registered members can be asked to set it in
their profile. That would help to select all those comments that definitely ARE
legally indexed and distributed to be extracted automatically.
The next thing is to determine what the legal status is of the Robots.txt
exclusion. Can anonymous posters legally rely on this exclusion to protect their
comments? Or is that exclusion the prerogative of the blog owner and can be
undone at will?
Rob
---
Some say the sun rises in the east, some say it rises in the west; the truth
lies probably somewhere in between.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Acrow Nimh on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 05:06 AM EDT |
Yes to everything... As somebody pointed out earlier, ALL the stuff on this
website is publically available now anyway, so what difference would it make
archiving it? (apart from achieving your rightful place in history, PJ!)
---
ISO....If you have the cash, we have the rubber stamp.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DrStupid on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 05:55 AM EDT |
I'm happy for all my comments and contributions to be included :) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 06:05 AM EDT |
...which is reason enough to do it all on its own.
I agree that the comments are a vital part of the record. They are also
available to the public anyway (apart from the members-only articles). To a
historian, the comments would give wonderful context and side colour. Give
them.
Some problems I see:
1. I don't know how the Library of Congress would take a copy of the comments
whilst preserving the Geeklog comment structure. The structure of the comments
is a vital part of being able to understand them. That's not our problem, but
I'd like to see the comment structure preserved.
2. There are many, many links to external websites in both the articles and
comments. Quite a few of these are dead already and the link-rot will only
continue. This will erode the value of the project over time, but it's well
worth doing all the same.
3. As others have pointed out, I'm concerned about the information being
"preserved" by being locked into a proprietary and possibly
DRM-protected format, possibly on a pay-to-view basis. You can't make
information free by locking it up. The one bargaining point Groklaw has is to
not allow this to go forward unless the information is genuinely made free, as
well as being preserved for eternity.
Notwithstanding the above, I say go for it: release in full, to the public.
Oh, and congratulations![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Davo.Sydney on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 06:19 AM EDT |
I think it's a great that they want to keep a record of Groklaw. :) And the more
places Groklaw is preserved the better.
But on the other side of the coin, SCO isn't allowing it's web site to be
archived on the Wayback Machine. And so for a complete record of what has
happened, I hope someone somewhere one day is able to give the Library of
Congress a complete Archive of the SCO web site. So as to complete the picture.
I'm not sure of the legality of taking a copy of SCO's web site, but I would be
interested if Novell or IBM or any other company or legal team has in fact
recorded SCO's web site and press releases etc... and I would be surprised if
they haven't.
Davo.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: TerryC on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 06:27 AM EDT |
Also; a well deserved honour. I'm very pleased for you (and that includes PJ
and all contributors).
---
Just think; if Microsoft added 'You hereby grant us a license to print money' to
their EULA, it wouldn't change its meaning a bit.
Terry[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PeterMan on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 06:42 AM EDT |
I can see no objections.
Although I only have been lurking the last few years and my posts have been of
limited significance at best I would consider it a great honor.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: iraskygazer on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 06:47 AM EDT |
Yea! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: JamesK on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 06:58 AM EDT |
I have no problem with my stuff being included. It'd be cool to be referenced
by the LoC.
---
IANALAIDPOOTV
(I am not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: warner on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 07:45 AM EDT |
Firstly, PJ, you have my permission to use my comments in any way whatsoever.
Though in the spirit of GL, and FOSS that this community has championed, I hope
and vote for full inclusion and full public access to be chosen.
Secondly, I just wanted to say what a delight it has been these last couple
weeks, seeing both SCO and GL finally reaching the ends they each so rightly
deserved. Though for GL it's really just a new beginning isn't it? :)
I am glad I was here at the beginning of this, though my contribution has been
less than the least.
It has been a joy to witness you Madam, you and the rest of the GL community.
What was created here by all is a thing worthy of remembering.
---
free software, for free minds and a free world.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dodger on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 07:49 AM EDT |
Groklaw is an honor to democracy and to our country.
Congratulations to PJ and the community for this great honor.
Everything should be put there. For posterity.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 07:55 AM EDT |
I have been lurking daily or almost daily since 2003.
My very few posts have been anonymous, me being the coward I am.
Once a post is on the Internet, it is out of control and cannot
be pushed into its bottle again.
When asked politely about my posts, I feel flattered and approve,
knowing very well that my only real option would have been never
posting them at all.
However, I have the impression that each post, when received,
is also accompanied by the IP address of its origin.
If this is so, I would find it very objectionable if these addresses
are saved at all and a catastrophy for privacy if they were made
available for anybody.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: reimero on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 08:00 AM EDT |
Absolutely.
I work in a law library, and I can see the value in having
this site archived as both a historical and a legal resource.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: cjk fossman on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 08:02 AM EDT |
For whatever they're worth, PJ has my permission to use my comments any way she
wants.
I do hope LoC preserves the comment threads.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: growler on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 08:16 AM EDT |
For completeness sake; I agree fully that Groklaw and all its comments should be
included. But then again, I have none to very few comments that would be
archived myself so maybe those that really have been vocal here should get the
definite say.
I have a few anon comments posted at various points over the years and for
those: Permission is hereby granted to PJ in full to do what she sees fit.
R. Growler.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: sclark46 on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 08:20 AM EDT |
Yes - all of it to everyone. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: abel on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 08:22 AM EDT |
I think it would be great to include comments in the library archives. I think
that peoples feelings and reactions to the events covered here on Groklaw are
just as relevant as the news itself.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: scav on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 08:48 AM EDT |
Yes. I think all comments should be archived and made public, and give
permission for mine, such as they are.
FWIW, I think trolls should be left in. Maybe future psychologists can make some
use of them one day.
---
The emperor, even undaunted by the *jury's* ruling that he *really* had no
clothes, redoubled his siege of Antarctica, to extort tribute from the penguins.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Zodak on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 08:59 AM EDT |
I'm not sure how enlightening any of my few posts might be, but I'm willing to
let them be archived.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Sticky Bits on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 09:11 AM EDT |
PJ,
You may allow the Library of Congress to archive any of my posts - whether
attributed or anonymous - in any way you see fit to do so.
Congratulations, the accolades are all yours.
So, when are we going to see you in that red dress? I've been waiting since May
of 2004!
R[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: greybeard on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 09:14 AM EDT |
Yes. To all.
--gb
---
-greybeard-[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 09:32 AM EDT |
A single, meaningless anonymous comment in 7 years, but yes, you have my
permission
-morgajel[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: holdenSK on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 09:32 AM EDT |
First: Congratulations to PJ for such recognition :)
Second: I am for archiving site also with comments, and to that effect I hereby
grant permission to PJ to use any and all comments I posted and/or will post on
this site for any purpose she deems appropriate and useful :)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: biochem_guy on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 09:35 AM EDT |
My vote is "Yes everything for everyone".
Biochem_guy
---
Chemistry is cool![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 09:44 AM EDT |
"And we can decide who can access the collection, the public at
large or just the Congress and on-site researchers and
historians."
I certainly expect that the public would be able to access
this, as the case that started it, has been in the public eye.
Also the Come's case and exhibits would then be accessible
elsewhere.
Include it all (I've posted mostly anonymously), and say it
needs to be there, AND accessible to the public![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 09:46 AM EDT |
yes
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 09:49 AM EDT |
Yep, and let them have everything! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 10:02 AM EDT |
I am only an occasional anonymous poster, but here is my take:
"everything currently public" should exclude logs and private e-mail,
but otherwise everything now in the public should be archived.
"for everyone" is important. A key issue of free software is that it
is non-discriminatory. E.g. the GPL prohibits limitations of usage areas (I
sometimes wish the GPL would allow such limitations, e.g. no military or no
nuclear usage, but overall the non-discriminatory clause is the better way).
Regarding copyright, I don't know US laws and I don't live in the US, but maybe
someone wants to research the following. Where I live copyright law contains
specific permissions for the state archive (an organization similar to the LOC),
to copy stuff, even break copy protection, without the explicit permission of
the copyright holders. This is to avoid problems if copyright holders can't be
identified or decryption keys got "lost".
Maybe the LOC has similar rights, so the discussion about comment copyright is
mood?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 10:08 AM EDT |
Hey PJ can we meet in person to talk about this. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jbeale on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 10:22 AM EDT |
You're certainly welcome to include my comments, and I think it should be fine
to include everyone's comments, the good with the bad.
I'm a little surprised there should even be a question... doesn't everyone
assume that everything they write on a public website will be permanently
archived? given the "wayback machine" etc. ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Jan on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 11:22 AM EDT |
Anything else would be a tragedy of sorts.
Made me figure out my login after gathering dust a few years :-)
---
Non sum iurisconsultus[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dlapine on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 11:26 AM EDT |
Yes to All [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: danielpf on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 11:33 AM EDT |
Yes. No problem. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: clicky_maker on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 11:36 AM EDT |
Groklaw may do whatever it wishes with the comments of the user
"clicky_maker".
---
505640[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dave booth on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 11:37 AM EDT |
Yes to everything, comments and public access included - Small and inane though
my contributions may have been over the years.
Its probably the only chance I'll ever get to have anything I wrote in that
library anyway :)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 11:47 AM EDT |
Yes to everything. This has been a lot of work for PJ and some of the rest of
us. I've never said anything I would worry about being preserved (though
perhaps some off topic).
Go for it -- this is far too good to waste, and sets a great example for any
future efforts.
One of the things I think many of us don't like about copyright law as it is, is
the effective loss of our culture due to things being illegal to copy, yet out
of print -- died on the vine never to return.
May Groklaw NEVER suffer that fate.
DougC
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 11:53 AM EDT |
If a requirement for the archival of documents is for a publication to have a
physical individual responsible for its contents, then Groklaw isn't a good
candidate.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: cwr2 on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 12:06 PM EDT |
PJ,
Groklaw is a wonderful learning resource and historical archive. There is no
better place to preserve it for the rest of time!
Congratulations ![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 12:13 PM EDT |
Yes (for my few comments).
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mdchaney on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 12:14 PM EDT |
Yes! Permission to post my comments. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: cr on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 01:03 PM EDT |
I think it's important that the comments streams be included in what's
archived and made available. Groklaw is more than a record of SCO v. world: it's
an instantiation of the open-source approach to something beyond direct
technology. Being able to see everything that went on, in context, is important,
both to sociologists and others seeking to understand "this is pivotal stuff --
just what happened here?", and to social activists seeking to understand "look,
this worked -- how do we make it happen again?" In fact, if someone can
scare up logs of the unofficial IRC channel, those should be included as well as
further context.
I hereby assign copyright on my few very minor
comments/contributions to PJ and the Groklaw team for such archival purposes and
any other uses they might find for them. --- GROKLAW: "And I would have
gotten away with it, too, if not for you meddling kids!" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: IANALitj on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 01:12 PM EDT |
This is not a formal opinion, just a pair of guesses.
If Groklaw does get archived by the LOC, prospective posters can be warned by a
notice to that effect, with an explicit grant of permission by those posting.
Several people have pointed out that there might conceivably be a problem with
getting permission from those who have posted in the past. Some of them are
anonymous; some may be dead.
As so often happens, there is a choice of law issue to contend with as a
preliminary matter. My first guess is that U. S. law applies.
My second guess is that the U. S. law of fair use may cover the matter,
considering (among other factors) the research use to which the copying will be
put, the purpose of the site to which the posters added their contributions, and
how small each posting is in comparison to the total mass to which those posting
knowingly made their additions.
There may be those who are in a better position to judge the applicability of
the fair use provisions of U. S. law than the LOC, but there can't be very many
(outside of the courts, of course, who have the final say).
Moreover, it is the LOC who would be doing the copying (and thus presumably the
infringing). In this connection, PJ might well wish to put in some weasel
wording in the permission she gives, in which she disclaims any responsibility
for copyright infringement by the LOC or those farther downstream.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 01:32 PM EDT |
Groklaw.net has some important documents referencing Micro$oft that seem to keep
disappearing from the web. To have those backed up by the federal government as
a permanent reference would be ideal.
The comments are integral to a blog. The articles are shaped by the comments
that came before. It helps to have those comments in the record to make it
easier to follow a thread of discussion. (Kind of like the
"Connections" shows.)
It is a pity that the troll postings are not available. Having that kind of
historical background is valuable, if only in a negative way. The trolls are
mentioned with some frequency, but we don't see the vitriol that they actually
spew. I think that is a loss for history, even if it is good for our blood
pressure.
-- Alma
(I hardly ever post, and only anonymously, for job search purposes, but you are
welcome to anything I have ever contributed.)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: prmills@earthlin on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 01:49 PM EDT |
Yes for everything.
I hereby grant permission to the Library of Congress to archive the Web site
identified above for inclusion in the Library's collection of Web materials.
I hereby grant permission to the Library of Congress to provide public access to
the archived versions of my website to researchers and patrons via the Library's
public Web site.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: uw_dwarf on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 02:11 PM EDT |
I'm in favour of seeing things archived at the LoC. I wonder, though, if
permission isn't needed for the LoC to have a copy under something like a
variation on a legal deposit requirement.
That leaves terms of access as the only issue in my mind, and given that
Groklaw is on the public Internet, comments are already about as open as they
can be.
The first thing I'd withhold is membership profile information for the writers
of
the attributed comments.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Rubberman on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 02:11 PM EDT |
Assuming that the answer to the question "What can it hurt?" is
"Not much.", then I vote yes.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ausage on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 03:08 PM EDT |
For myself... I hereby grant permission and license to
Growlaw to publish and repulibsh this comment and any others
that I have made or will in future make on its website and
any archive, partial or complete copies of the Groklaw
website.
IANAL, but my take on this is that, much the same as when I
write a "letter to the editor" to my local newspaper, by
submitting a comment to Groklaw or any other interactive
website, I am granting an implicit licence of that website
to publish my comment. This would include the both the
original website and any copies that may be made.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: wood gnome on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 03:21 PM EDT |
Just a couple of things that popped up in my mind:
1. I'd be interested to know just who managed to get this up into the LoC
deciding chain.
2. PJ, will you have a say in what category they'll put Groklaw? IP? Legal
Ethics? Tech & Law? Your personal preference?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: uiLKK4 on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 03:34 PM EDT |
"I hereby grant permission to the Library of Congress to provide public
access to the archived versions of my website to researchers and patrons via the
Library's public Web site."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: softbear on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 03:38 PM EDT |
The good, the bad, and the ugly.
I am confident the a static archive of the site, in the hands of the LOC can
only be a good thing.
---
IANAL, etc.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bhaskar on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 04:08 PM EDT |
My vote is for all content, including comments, to be made
available to LOC and freely accessible to all. The content
of Groklaw is priceless and it is appropriate for an
organization such as LOC to preserve it for posterity.
My vote also extends to future requests from other
organizations with a similar mission of learning (e.g., if
the British Museum were to ask).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 04:55 PM EDT |
For awhile it seemed like every Christmas there were advertisements for
"name a star" where you could pay $$ and
they would name a star after the person of your choice. You would get a paper
certificate, and they would put their "star registry" in the Library
of Congress.
So here you go. Just post a post with your name on it and you will be in the
Library of Congress. Print yourself a certificate and you are in business.
I hereby give the official alias "Anonymous" to that star also known
as Polaris.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 05:13 PM EDT |
Groklaw.net will be one of the most researched sites for
future technology historians.
And PJ, in spite of you statements about what others have done
for Groklaw, you and you alone are the CIO here.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Jamis on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 07:12 PM EDT |
I believe that Groklaw should be archived in its entirety. I think any attempt
to partition it would eventually leave a void somewhere. Let the future
determine what is relevant or not. This is a great complement to the Groklaw
community and the person who started it all. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 07:20 PM EDT |
You should do both, but if enough people object then withhold the comments. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Groo on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 07:37 PM EDT |
I give PJ the right to do whatever she would like with my comments posted on
Groklaw for personal, public, and even commercial use. Enjoy.
-Charlie[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PTrenholme on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 07:53 PM EDT |
I hereby grant PJ license to use any materiel I submit (at any time) to her
blog, "Groklaw," in any way she sees fit, including removal of any implied or
actual copyright I have in any such postings.
If that's not clear, PJ,
you or anyone you designate, can do anything you want to do with anything I've
ever posted, or will ever post, in the Groklaw blog. --- IANAL, just a
retired statistician [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 08:39 PM EDT |
In the spirit of Open Source and democracy, let Groklaw be included in the
Library of Congress archive, to be accessible to everyone. As we all know, and
as you have so elegantly demonstrated, when knowledge is free and open, our
freedom as a people and as a nation remains strong.
Al Butler
Custom Desktop Solutions[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kss18 on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 12:48 AM EDT |
Yes, absolutely. Every last bit of data should be preserved.
krishna
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 01:47 AM EDT |
Of course you can use them! If I'd have know the LoC wanted them, I wouldn't
have posted them anonymously from the office.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dobbo on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 02:58 AM EDT |
I would have and issue if any government agency (or anyone at all for that
matter) were to archive my copyrighted material and then restrict who had access
to it.
So long as their are no restrictions placed on who has access to
the material then I have no objections to this. Dobbo[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Alan(UK) on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 06:38 AM EDT |
Congratulations.
Yes, you may include my comments both signed and anonymous.
Yes, include everything that is currently accessible.
Do not include anything deleted. Groklaw is noted for not including bad
language, trolls, and links to porn sites. If the LoC wants examples of those,
it has the rest of the Internet to go at.
Groklaw would not be possible without the Internet. Any restriction on access is
totally opposite to the concepts of freedom and openness enshrined in FOSS, the
GPL, GNU/Linux, and Groklaw. The only secrets we have are private: addresses,
e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, IP addresses; and PJ's identity.
But where are the opposition? A 'no' thread, a few trollish remarks, not much
else. Where are the real opposition? I mean, the people who really don't want
Groklaw to be widely read? People like:
Microsoft and its senior management and partners.
ISO and those who enabled ISO/IEC 29500 to be accepted.
AT&T and the Regents of California University whose sealed agreement has
been published on Groklaw.
And of course our old fiend Darl McBride and NewSCO.
It is amazing how many slimy things go scurrying for shelter when you turn over
a stone. If this is the last post on Groklaw and if the files are wiped clean,
know this, the world will never be the same again. Thanks PJ.
---
Microsoft is nailing up its own coffin from the inside.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 07:23 AM EDT |
Yes and it needs to be everything so folks have an accurate picture! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: eibhear on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 08:29 AM EDT |
Hi PJ,
Congratulations on the validation you and Groklaw have received with this
request.
I stopped commenting a long time ago, and such as they are, but I hereby give
permission for all of the comments I have made -- and will make -- on Groklaw to
be archived by the US Library of Congress.
Well done,
Éibhear[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: markhb on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 08:40 AM EDT |
It's been a while since I posted anything of substance, but you're welcome to
archive anything with my name on it.
---
IANAL, but ITRYINGTOCHILLOUT... et SCO delenda est![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ak_hepcat on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 11:57 AM EDT |
I don't think I've commented much since 2003... but in any case, if I did:
"I hereby grant permission to the Library of Congress to provide public
access to the archived versions of my website to researchers and patrons via the
Library's public Web site."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: troll on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 11:59 AM EDT |
Yes. The groklaw should be archived in its entirety.
Including comments.
Even comments made by Trolls.
Yours truly ...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: hawken on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 01:36 PM EDT |
...with warts and all.. :)
---
Linux user since 1998
Registered Linux user #207629[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 05:53 PM EDT |
What an amazing offer! Groklaw is truly important as one of the first
collaborative efforts at defending something from an unjust legal attack by
leveraging the power of the internet. It is of immense historical value and
should
be preserved.
Joel[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: pdp on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 07:19 PM EDT |
YES,
with full Public Access to everyone.
---
(defvar MyComputer '((OS ."GNU/Emacs") (IPL ."GNU/Linux")))
1st Law of dissuasion of criminal intent : Present a gun !
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: chris_bloke on Friday, April 09 2010 @ 05:54 AM EDT |
I'm more than happy for it all to get archived.
Hopefully in a future proof technology![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 09 2010 @ 06:23 PM EDT |
Yes. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ewe2 on Saturday, April 10 2010 @ 12:45 PM EDT |
Indeed, the collaborative work done on Unix sourcecode alone is worth a study in
itself. Those who would lock up history for financial gain need to be countered
by such knowledge, and the process needs to be preserved for future
understanding. Put it all up.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: odysseus on Saturday, April 10 2010 @ 05:16 PM EDT |
Bit late to the party, I've been down a trench digging up Roman ruins for the
last two weeks...
Anyway, putting on my sometimes historian & archaeologists hats, I say go
for the full Monty and put everything in LoC with full public access.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: john82a on Monday, April 12 2010 @ 04:00 PM EDT |
I haven't posted much anyway, and probably nothing in the
past couple of years even, but having joined a few months
after you started, I am more than happy to add a yes to
Groklaw's inclusion in this project.
I do think the comments were a very great part of my
interest in the site, and I believe I learned a lot, not
just about the law or history of computing, but also about
the community at large and the very generous spirits of all
the contributors. Not having been a close participant in the
past few years was certainly my loss.
john hinton[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Sean DALY on Thursday, April 15 2010 @ 03:15 AM EDT |
Yes for our interviews and my comments!
Sean[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: hanzie on Sunday, April 18 2010 @ 04:27 PM EDT |
I am proud and humble. Proud that I had at least a microscopic part in Groklaw.
I am humble because I realize how utterly tiny that part was.
Congratulations PJ. A heartfelt YES to your question.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 19 2010 @ 11:57 AM EDT |
Absolutely. Give them everything. This site is a stellar example of a lot of
things, all of which I'm sure future folks will want/need access to.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|