Slash Boxes
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • I can get behind the idea of making information free, available, and collaborative. That's why I think wikibooks is such a good idea []

    What I can't get behind is the notion that it is acceptable to illegally share information against the author's and publisher's legal rights. It doesn't matter if you think it is a bad idea for them to close source their work, it is their prerogative and it should be respected - both morally and legally. Trying to make it all right by claiming it is for non-commercial use is NOT all right.

    In closing, I agree that more people would benefit if books didn't cost anything and that it would still be possible for an author to make money and that the quality of the material would likely go up if it were available for collaboration and that more people should want to share their knowledge without restriction. I also think that you are insane that if you feel it is ok to violate someone's legal rights because you think it is a bad idea. I think the number of books written would plummet if there were no laws protecting their non-commercial distribution.

    Since this seems to be a common theme for you, I wonder what your reaction would be to an essay someone wrote where they made a very good point for violating your legal rights (something important to you).