cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1994-11-30 - Re: We are ALL guests (except Eric)

Header Data

From: “L. Todd Masco” <cactus@hks.net>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: b2f28b31d58fa2ae5c6b2d3587b68f68da52f312c312de8d1e26a5b471aa8265
Message ID: <199411301754.QAA05251@seabsd.hks.net>
Reply To: <199411301727.QAA05211@seabsd.hks.net>
UTC Datetime: 1994-11-30 21:58:45 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 30 Nov 94 13:58:45 PST

Raw message

From: "L. Todd Masco" <cactus@hks.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 94 13:58:45 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: We are ALL guests (except Eric)
In-Reply-To: <199411301727.QAA05211@seabsd.hks.net>
Message-ID: <199411301754.QAA05251@seabsd.hks.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Perry E. Metzger writes:
 > Pardon.
 > 
 > Eric has more or less total control over the mailing list. The control
 > is imperfect -- I could, for instance, blow up the machine.
 > 
 > You claim this imperfection is reason to consider it to be "community
 > property" or some such.

Not at all.  I'm making no positive claim: I just do not see any particular
reason to consider the list Eric's.  Perhaps you should clarify what you
mean by "the list": do you mean the set of bits that describe the mailing
addresses of every person on the list or do you simply mean the instance
of majordomo running on toad.com with the previous bit stream loaded?

I'm thinking of the former as being "the list" and thus squarely in the
realm of intellectual property and all the snags that entails.

If it's the latter you're referring to, sure, we can call it "Eric's."  But
so what?  That and a subway token will get you to Brooklyn.  My main point,
which you keep dropping off, is that the instantiation of the set of mailing
addresses at a particular site is a relatively minor factor in the
continuity of a mailing list.

	-- Todd

Thread