Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
At the after-opening soiree, a couple of young (16 and 17) members of the show were saying how wonderful it is that Helen's gone. They seemed to miss the significance of TB occurring in the resident population at the end of National's last term. They don't even remember the last time, but they're happy to see the back of Helen.
Kinda like the anecdote earlier about the would-be Rodders voter.
-
The Nat rump -well, my frellow citizens, who voted, one or the other, for that crew - I despise you.
"Vote for change: get a Cabinet of 20 with 500 years' political experience between them." About sums up National, really.
-
Steve, www.electionresults.govt.nz
-
Went up the road to St George's and voted. 15-minute return trip, to walk there and back and do my thing in the booth. Did the left-leaning Epsom voter thing, but word from a friend's parents who're on the Epsom Labour committee is that Rodders is considered a dead-cert so just vote for whoever actually floats your boat.
I'm somewhat gutted, because a show that I'm involved with opens tonight (and the date was set last year, so I blame Helen! :P) so I can't watch the early returns. Won't get home before 11, at best, so it'll be halfway over before I even get started.
-
Unfortunately, what the delegates heard was "I think that you should not be allowed to make money, and furthermore, I wish to boil your children and dismember your pets."
Sounds roughly like what I encountered in the other copyright thread, which was why I gave up. When you're being attacked for a position you don't hold (ie: having to defend what amounted to charges of being an abolitionist, when that's not my view), there's no point sticking around.
-
This site purports that Lessig himself, who is the "father" of the Creative Commons, believes that the interpretation I posited above about sites with ads is "the best reading". With the caveat that some advertising regimes likely go to far, and also that until a judge decides it's a little grey. However, one would imagine that Lessig's words would carry an enormous amount of weight in aiding the courts in their interpretation of the licence.
-
And the usual disclaimer: IANAL, IANALS(tudent), YMMV, offer not valid where prohibited by law, keep out of reach of children, avoid operating heavy machinery after use.
-
“Non-Commercial” means “not primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or private monetary compensation”. The exchange of the Work for other copyright works by means of digital file-sharing or otherwise shall not be considered to be intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or private monetary compensation, provided there is no payment of any monetary compensation in connection with the exchange of copyright works.
That's from the CC ANC licence. So your use of NC-licensed CC works on PAS would fall within the accepted use, provided that no payment was made/received for the work. The existence of advertisements on PAS doesn't qualify, by any reasonable interpretation, as the published works being "intended for or directed towards commercial advantage". If you were to charge for access to a particular NC-licensed article, that would be a breach. It would also be distinctly arguable as to the permissibility of compiling those articles and then selling them. Maybe legal, maybe not. The licence does allow for compilation and dissemination, but making a book and then selling it appears to run directly counter to the non-commercial bit.
-
I pulled out my piece of voting paper and made a call to the chief returning officier and asked the lovely who answered if she considered 40+ minutes acceptable??? She said no, and she would dispatch reinforcements post-haste to the polling station.
Tom, that is awesome! I love this country's electoral system, and that's just one of the reasons.
-
published under the Attribution-Noncommercial licence.
Cool.
That actually helps clarify my thoughts on how to approach it sitewide.
My suggestion would be to very clearly announce that the site layout is under ordinary, no-rights-granted, copyright, while the published content is under whichever form of CC licence you decide except where otherwise stated. Amongst other things Cactus have their own copyrights in the engine, and the last thing you want to do is tread on their toes.
PS: Can you pretty please fix that "Standford" boo-boo, and the formatting glitches :)