List for discussing many majordomos (fwd)

Forwarded message:

> Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 22:46:03 -0800
> From: Greg Broiles <gbroiles@netbox.com>
> Subject: List for discussing many majordomos

> Yes, this is a good idea. One of the proponents of the "many majordomos"
> project apparently has plans to impose his own ideas about intellectual
> property on the project, and this seems like a pretty serious thing for a
> setup that's allegedly going to prevent censorship. We need a place to
> discuss this.

Please explain how making submissions de facto public domain censors
anyone?


                                                     Jim Choate
                                                     CyberTects
                                                     ravage@ssz.com

I forward articles to cypherpunks that are copyrighted by my employers, or
magazines like Playboy and Wired for which I write freelance pieces. 

I like to think these articles have some value. I will not forward any of
them, nor would I be able to, if they magically became "public domain."

"De facto public domain" is an idea that deserves to die. Now.

-Declan


On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Jim Choate wrote:

> 
> Forwarded message:
> 
> > Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 22:46:03 -0800
> > From: Greg Broiles <gbroiles@netbox.com>
> > Subject: List for discussing many majordomos
> 
> > Yes, this is a good idea. One of the proponents of the "many majordomos"
> > project apparently has plans to impose his own ideas about intellectual
> > property on the project, and this seems like a pretty serious thing for a
> > setup that's allegedly going to prevent censorship. We need a place to
> > discuss this.
> 
> Please explain how making submissions de facto public domain censors
> anyone?
> 
> 
>                                                      Jim Choate
>                                                      CyberTects
>                                                      ravage@ssz.com
> 
> 
>