cromwell@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
On Sun, 9 Apr 1995 anima@devi.demon.co.uk wrote:
> What an extraordinarily mean (in the British sense) communication this is:
>
> >Robert,
> >
> >The question that comes to my mind is why would anyone who had any
> >genuine concern about PCP, for any reason whatsoever, and especially
> >for narrow, self-serving, self-aggrandizing reasons as exemplified by
> >your concerns about "significant copyright and subscription issues",
> >put any impediments whatsoever, in the way of the widest possible
> >dissemination of the ideas of GAK. You didn't originate those ideas.
> >
> >Joe Whitehurst
>
> I assume that Bob's concern for "significant copyright and subscription
> issues" is exactly what it states: that he has a legal responsibility to
> the journal publishers which prevents him from reproducing it on the Web
> until the day (which we'd all welcome) when electronic reproduction issues
> have been explored and made possible.
>
> Or is the tone of Joe's message part of some vendetta? Bob edits a journal
> for which people pay a subscription (in my case, a personal one) and he has
> a responsibility to people like me _not_ to make the contents available for
> free to people who don't subscribe, until the day when subscriptions to
> paper versus electronic media are sorted out.
>
> The people who develop Kelly's ideas published therein (and I'm one of
> them) are quite comfortable with the idea that the editor protects their
> copyright as part of his contract with them and the publisher.
>
> Or did I misunderstand you, Joe?
>
> Devi Jankowicz
Well stated, Davi. In addition, the distinction seems to be getting lost
between refereed communication and open free communication. Both are
important, but it would be a tragic blunder to confuse one with the other.
Cheers to all PCPeople,
>
> >
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%