Tom,

You missed my point (I was afraid you might write as you did <g>).  I realize that a "license to use" and "placing in the public domain" are very different things, thus my words, "dissimilar in effect", referring to the generality of the process.

With reference to your previous post, I think also that in "announcing" changes to their TOS, Yahoo! originally made non-specific or somewhat generalized statements pertaining to their intention to have copyright created in their hands by virtue of their publishing a post.  Likely then, the final language reflected a more conservative reality.

It would seem then that Yahoo's assertions to copyright, are not of great concern at this point, given that an archive can be extinguished, with its re-establishment elsewhere, dissolving Yahoo's rights while preserving the service to group subscribers.

Michael


At 12:20 PM 5/2/02 -0400, Tom Rawson wrote:
>On 2 May 2002 Michael McNeil wrote:
>
>> Simply put, then, Yahoo is in effect stating that by making access to your
>> posts, archives, etc., public, you are granting them license to use,
>> dissimilar in effect, but not the process of putting something into the
>> public domain?
>
>A license for one entity to use the material for something they want to do
>with something you write is dramatically and fundamentally different from
>a release to the public domain.
>
>In addition Yahoo restricts the license to use of the material to "promote
>or provide" the specific group where it was posted, and also states that
>if you remove the material they no longer have the license.  It is
>relatively carefully restricted -- not a broad license at all.