ISS On-orbit Status, 20-07-2004

Jeff Findley wrote:

wrote in message
m...
(Derek Lyons) wrote in message
...
Does that imply permission would be forthcoming if asked for and the
appropriate attributions added?

Jacques does not have permission to post *any* copyright protected
material from SpaceRef.com - nor is such permission forthcoming.

However, nothing is stopping Jacques from posting one line messages which
are nothing more than a link to SpaceRef.com. That would not violate any
copyright. It has the added benefit that more people would be regularly
exposed to SpaceRef.com.

It woudl be utterly pointless - besides, the spaceref peopel could do it
themselfs too or pay for somebody to do it.


Jeff

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

wrote:

Jeff you do not know what you are talking about. The modified
document is a unique work and is protected under copyright law.

umm.. no. if somebody was to remove your text, you would have no
claim onteh result any more.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

wrote:
"Jacques van Oene" wrote:
[...]
Wel then send me the original NASA report and I post them here,
[...]

You do not have permission to post copyright protected material from
SpaceRef.com - anywhere. I have already been in contact - several
times - with your Internet service provider on this matter.

It is very clear that Jacques is offering to post only *the original
NASA report* without your copyright material.

Your response sounds like either you missed that point, or that you
are being petulant.

/dps

"dave schneider" wrote in message
om...
wrote:
"Jacques van Oene" wrote:
[...]
Wel then send me the original NASA report and I post them here,
[...]

You do not have permission to post copyright protected material from
SpaceRef.com - anywhere. I have already been in contact - several
times - with your Internet service provider on this matter.

It is very clear that Jacques is offering to post only *the original
NASA report* without your copyright material.

Your response sounds like either you missed that point, or that you
are being petulant.

Keith's unwillingness to release the original NASA document is a business
decision, plain and simple. Why release something to the public he worked
to get?

Why Keith doesn't come out and say this directly, I don't know.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

Keith,

You haven't addressed Jacques, mine or others' request to post the material
here for "ease of reading and discussion".
So what say ye?

Kevin

wrote in message
m...
"Jacques van Oene" wrote in message
...
schreef in berichtnieuws

Several days ago you said you would no longer be posting anything to
this newsgroup.

Yes I did, and I still do not post, but if the readers of this newsgroup
want me to post again I will post the NASA/ESA and Space Company's News
releases to this or to sci.space.news........(that will make a lot of
readers happy....(I think, and hope).


The material you posted, although edited, still contained material
that I wrote. I retain copyright to that material. You do not have
permission to post copyright protected material from SpaceRef.com


Wel then send me the original NASA report and I post them
here,........(that
will make a lot of readers happy....(I think, and hope).
Eeverybody now knows that -if they want to read your added material-
they
can go to your site....But I think you won't go for that option.....



Jacques :-)

www.spacepatches.info


You do not have permission to post copyright protected material from
SpaceRef.com - anywhere. I have already been in contact - several
times - with your Internet service provider on this matter.

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

"dave schneider" wrote in message
om...
wrote:
"Jacques van Oene" wrote:
[...]
Wel then send me the original NASA report and I post them here,
[...]

You do not have permission to post copyright protected material from
SpaceRef.com - anywhere. I have already been in contact - several
times - with your Internet service provider on this matter.

It is very clear that Jacques is offering to post only *the original
NASA report* without your copyright material.

Your response sounds like either you missed that point, or that you
are being petulant.

Keith's unwillingness to release the original NASA document is a business
decision, plain and simple. Why release something to the public he worked
to get?

Why Keith doesn't come out and say this directly, I don't know.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.



Jeff,

I don't mean to argue with you or anyone else, but Keith's insider who is
forwarding him these reports obviously gives him an edge. All some of us are
asking is for limited distribution of that unedited material here. Somehow,
I don't think that him posting that here in this relatively obscure
newsgroup will have nay serious affect on Spaceref.com traffic, or cause his
business to fail.
In fact, it is the continued discussion and debate of all things NASA that
has fueled his business. I think the continued posting of material here
helps that cause.

Wouldn't you agree?

Kevin

"K. Collier" wrote in message
news

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...
Keith's unwillingness to release the original NASA document is a
business
decision, plain and simple. Why release something to the public he
worked
to get?

Why Keith doesn't come out and say this directly, I don't know.

I don't mean to argue with you or anyone else, but Keith's insider who is
forwarding him these reports obviously gives him an edge. All some of us
are
asking is for limited distribution of that unedited material here.
Somehow,
I don't think that him posting that here in this relatively obscure
newsgroup will have nay serious affect on Spaceref.com traffic, or cause
his
business to fail.
In fact, it is the continued discussion and debate of all things NASA that
has fueled his business. I think the continued posting of material here
helps that cause.

Wouldn't you agree?

I would tend to agree.

However, I'm just speculating about Keith's motives for not wanting this
material posted to the sci.space newsgroups. He could have other reasons.
Perhaps this is the arrangement he has with his NASA source, that the
material would only be released on NASA Watch.

Why he doesn't come right out and say that he won't release the original
NASA documents (and why), I don't know. He's leaving us all to speculate
about his motives.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

"Jeff Findley" wrote:

Why he doesn't come right out and say that he won't release the original
NASA documents (and why), I don't know. He's leaving us all to speculate
about his motives.

Maybe he's wondering why we haven't visited

http://www.nasa.gov/news/highlights/returntoflight.html

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Jeff Findley" wrote:

Why he doesn't come right out and say that he won't release the original
NASA documents (and why), I don't know. He's leaving us all to speculate
about his motives.

Maybe he's wondering why we haven't visited

http://www.nasa.gov/news/highlights/returntoflight.html

I see no reason why Jacques couldn't post the status reports shown here.
I'd personally include a link back to the specific report. For example:

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2004...le_status.html

Unfortunately, this page isn't very timely. The latest "official" NASA
space shuttle status report is dated 7-23-2004 (over a week old), while
Keith has what looks like a newer one dated 7-30-2004 on Spaceref:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=13530

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

I think those reports on the NASA sight are weekly summaries. So they will
most likely always be a week old.

I will send a genuine flight patch to anyone who will post the real daily
reports.

Kevin

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Jeff Findley" wrote:

Why he doesn't come right out and say that he won't release the
original
NASA documents (and why), I don't know. He's leaving us all to
speculate
about his motives.

Maybe he's wondering why we haven't visited

http://www.nasa.gov/news/highlights/returntoflight.html

I see no reason why Jacques couldn't post the status reports shown here.
I'd personally include a link back to the specific report. For example:

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2004...le_status.html

Unfortunately, this page isn't very timely. The latest "official" NASA
space shuttle status report is dated 7-23-2004 (over a week old), while
Keith has what looks like a newer one dated 7-30-2004 on Spaceref:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=13530

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.