Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
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.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • So, I guess you think it's wacky for me to be against a publisher who post-copyrights technical books, which people tend to want to be up-to-date, and a publisher of a book that "Rather than simply describing the vulnerabilities and their exploits theoretically or showing you how to use pre-existing tools to exploit the vulnerabilities...provides the nuts & bolts you need to learn how to program your own exploit code." At least you linked to my post, but I'm wondering exactly what you disagree with abou

    • I guess you think it's wacky for me to be against a publisher who post-copyrights technical books...

      As explained before, this is what book publishers do with the permission of the Library of Congress so as to receive copyright the entire length of the copyright period, and not just part of the last year.

      (Of course, O'Reilly books enter the public domain long before the copyright period expires.)

      If the copyright year of 2006 for a book that goes to the printer in December 2005 really causes you that

      • There was a greater difference between the date I bought the book and the printed copyright date than that. Lets try to not be misleading with our examples. I don't know when the book first went on sale, but I bought the book in November and the copyright was listed as the next year. See my original post about it here [perlmonks.org], where I also quote copyright law. If there's some aspect of the law that makes printing a later copyright legal, and if it's done on all major books when applicable, then I'd withdraw my com