# Re: Re SGML URC spec comments

Brian Behlendorf (brian@organic.com)
Sun, 25 Jun 1995 18:05:37 -0700 (PDT)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Terry Allen: "Re: Re SGML URC spec comments"
- Previous message: Paul Hoffman: "Re: Re SGML URC spec comments"
- In reply to: Terry Allen: "Re SGML URC spec comments"
- Next in thread: Terry Allen: "Re: Re SGML URC spec comments"

    Date: Sun, 25 Jun 1995 18:05:37 -0700 (PDT)

    From: Brian Behlendorf <brian@organic.com>

    Subject: Re: Re SGML URC spec comments

    To: Terry Allen <terry@ora.com>

    In-Reply-To: <9506251329.ZM26268@dmg.west.ora.com>

    Message-Id: <Pine.3.89.9506251711.W10466-0100000@eat.organic.com>

You're right, and I think we had this discussion before, the outcome was that
my use of "attach" is inaccurate, it should really be "create and point" or
"make" - attach implies that authors/servers should be compelled to also
provide resources for housing and distributing SOAPs of their own content,
while what I really want to see is that the ability to give a SOAP is not
specifically allowed nor disallowed by authors/servers. In fact, completely
divorcing it could ensure that SOAPs are accurate and that "bad" SOAPs aren't
weeded out. The question is, how does one ask for the complete set of SOAPs
for a given page? Superdistribution of SOAPs a la NNTP?

Brian

On Sun, 25 Jun 1995, Terry Allen wrote:
> I think Ron answered Brian's questions about VRML the way I would.
> I want to take issue again with Brian's suggestion that wrt global
> annotations,
>
> >The right to
> >attach these comments should *not* be controlled by the author
>
> I've argued against this in the past on copyright grounds (and I
> still feel that way). However, Justice Souter's recent decision
> in Hurley v. Irish-American GLB Group of Boston suggests that there
> is a First Amendment angle:
>
> "The fundamental rule of protection under the First Amendment ...
> [is] that a speaker has the autonomy to choose the content of his
> own message."
>
> I maintain that the Hurley case is precisely parallel to what global
> annos without author permission would amount to: the I-A GLB G of
> Boston wanted to comment on the parade without the permission of the
> parade organizers (who won). For excerpts, see NYT Tuesday, June 26
> 1995.
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Terry Allen (terry@ora.com) O'Reilly & Associates, Inc.
> Editor, Digital Media Group 101 Morris St.
> Sebastopol, Calif., 95472
>
> A Davenport Group sponsor. For information on the Davenport
> Group see ftp://ftp.ora.com/pub/davenport/README.html
> or http://www.ora.com/davenport/README.html
>

--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--
brian@organic.com brian@hyperreal.com http://www.[hyperreal,organic].com/

- Next message: Terry Allen: "Re: Re SGML URC spec comments"
- Previous message: Paul Hoffman: "Re: Re SGML URC spec comments"
- In reply to: Terry Allen: "Re SGML URC spec comments"
- Next in thread: Terry Allen: "Re: Re SGML URC spec comments"