Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!news.linkpendium.com!news.linkpendium.com!newsfeeds.ihug.co.nz!lust.ihug.co.nz!ihug.co.nz!not-for-mail From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: Death To Sub-Sub-Sub-Directories! Followup-To: comp.lang.java.programmer Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 18:50:36 +1200 Organization: Geek Central Lines: 25 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 118-92-95-178.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Trace: lust.ihug.co.nz 1305874236 31548 118.92.95.178 (20 May 2011 06:50:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@ihug.co.nz NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 06:50:36 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: KNode/4.4.7 Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:4342 In message , John Silverstein wrote: > On 19/05/2011 11:31 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > >> In message, John Silverstein wrote: >> >>> On 19/05/2011 8:36 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>> >>>> In message, John Silverstein wrote: >>>> >>>>> If someone puts that in their usenet >>>>> post, but no X-No-Archive: Yes header, and Google then shows ads >>>>> alongside it in Google Groups, can Google be sued? >>>> >>>> X-No-Archive makes no difference. >>> >>> Its absence could be interpreted as granting Usenet archives an implicit >>> reproduction license under attribution-noderivs like terms. >> >> Except, since it says no such thing, no. > > Wrong. It's become a norm that Usenet posts can be retained and, without > modification except to add Xref etc. headers, redistributed: Say who?