- From: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 12:14:28 -0500
- To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
> gets taken down. To support what you say, the counterexample we need > is exactly what you state above - a site that does (or did) nothing > more than link, using <a>, similar to the bicycling site that Henry > mentions. Then we'll have a very clear situation to respond to, > without the confounding considerations raised by the > transclusion/far-reference distinction. Well, I don't think they're entirely confounding. As I point out in my email to David, I think the embed question is of crucial architectural significance. It's difficult to check which sites merely linked, because the sites are now seized, but the closest I've been able to find in a couple minutes searching is http://rojadirecta.es/ whose http://rojadirecta.com/ domain name was seized by the same team that seized http://channelsurfing.net/
Received on Friday, 11 March 2011 17:15:24 UTC