From: Bill Davidsen (davidsen@prodigy.com)
Date: Mon Jul 02 2001 - 16:41:20 CDT
chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey) suggested:
> In <200106271503.LAA27907@darkstar.prodigy.com> davidsen@prodigy.com (Bill Davidsen) writes:
>
> >================================================================
> >NOTE: Posters are cautioned that some sites may not correctly implement
> >the "no" option of the Archive header. In some jurisdictions site
> >non-compliance with this header may be a violation of copyright or
> >other laws.
> >================================================================
>
> Yes, that looks good. I think I would remove the word "site". And
> "violation" might not be quite the correct term for what is generally a
> civil rather than a criminal matter. So it might be better as
>
> "... may constitute a breach of copyright or of other legal provisions"
I can live with that. Of "may have legal implications," which should be
nebulous enough to satisfy those alergic to anything legal in a
standard, and still strong enough so that someone could say "we told you
so" later.
-- -bill davidsen (davidsen@prodigy.com) "The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the last possible moment - but no longer" -me