Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2025 13:33:16 +0200
On 18/07/2025 10:50, Frederick Virchanza Gotham via Std-Proposals wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 12:32 AM Oliver Hunt wrote:
>>
>> That’s not how consent works, and the fact that you are not just
>> ignoring someone stating explicitly that you do not have permission
>> to redistribute their work, you are literally dismissing their right to do so.
>
>
> I'm not saying that I have consent. I'm saying that I don't need
> consent. Like if I'm filming at a local park, and a guy comes up to me
> and says I don't want to be in the frame, well I don't need to adjust
> my camera position or edit the footage afterwards.
>
Do you realise that filming people at a local park is unlawful in many
jurisdictions, and many circumstances? Compounding factors would
include focusing on and identifying people, publishing the film
somewhere, and ignoring explicit requests from a person not to film them
and not to publish the film. And that applies even if the person in
question was giving a speech to all around who wanted to listen.
In some places at least, your analogy would not just be unlawful
(meaning the person could sue you in a civil court), but would be a
criminal offence (leading to arrest and the possibility of jail time).
I am no lawyer, and I am not even very clear about what you are actually
trying to do here. But it is very apparent that you have no idea what
rights you or any authors of C++ proposals have. And you clearly have
no respect for the interests and opinions of the paper authors.
It is possible that what you are planning is simply a better search tool
- something that will make it easier for people to find existing
proposal papers on particular topics, compared to looking through the
index files on the WG21 website. That could, potentially, be a useful
thing, and if it is done in good faith and supports only appropriate
searches, and leads to links to the papers on the WG21 site, would not
be remotely problematic from a copyright viewpoint. But if that is your
intention, then you have done a very poor job of explaining it - try
explaining better, rather than belittling the people who are sceptical
to what appears to be an abuse of their work.
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 12:32 AM Oliver Hunt wrote:
>>
>> That’s not how consent works, and the fact that you are not just
>> ignoring someone stating explicitly that you do not have permission
>> to redistribute their work, you are literally dismissing their right to do so.
>
>
> I'm not saying that I have consent. I'm saying that I don't need
> consent. Like if I'm filming at a local park, and a guy comes up to me
> and says I don't want to be in the frame, well I don't need to adjust
> my camera position or edit the footage afterwards.
>
Do you realise that filming people at a local park is unlawful in many
jurisdictions, and many circumstances? Compounding factors would
include focusing on and identifying people, publishing the film
somewhere, and ignoring explicit requests from a person not to film them
and not to publish the film. And that applies even if the person in
question was giving a speech to all around who wanted to listen.
In some places at least, your analogy would not just be unlawful
(meaning the person could sue you in a civil court), but would be a
criminal offence (leading to arrest and the possibility of jail time).
I am no lawyer, and I am not even very clear about what you are actually
trying to do here. But it is very apparent that you have no idea what
rights you or any authors of C++ proposals have. And you clearly have
no respect for the interests and opinions of the paper authors.
It is possible that what you are planning is simply a better search tool
- something that will make it easier for people to find existing
proposal papers on particular topics, compared to looking through the
index files on the WG21 website. That could, potentially, be a useful
thing, and if it is done in good faith and supports only appropriate
searches, and leads to links to the papers on the WG21 site, would not
be remotely problematic from a copyright viewpoint. But if that is your
intention, then you have done a very poor job of explaining it - try
explaining better, rather than belittling the people who are sceptical
to what appears to be an abuse of their work.
Received on 2025-07-18 11:33:21