Hi All! Now that GenForum has contacted one of these lists, I think it is time that I bring you up to date on issues that I have brought to your attention before. There has been a lot of discussion lately on the list owner mailing list about GenForum. Basically, the "GenForum Staff"is alleged to have plagerized the web pages of John Fuller ( http://users.aol.com/johnf14246/gen_mail.html ) to develop the GenForum web site. At the time GenForum site went on the web, there was significant evidence to their "theft" on the GenForum web site. The proof was that virtually every surname from John's site was listed on GenForum, including all of the variations or lack of variations as listed at John's site. John asked me before he listed our surname mailing list on his site. GenForum did not request anything from me. As a result of complaints by listowners, GenForum removed the variations that were posted on their web pages without removing the "root" surname, to me an admission that the charges were true. As well, they removed all messages that had been posted on their site by anyone who mentioned anything about mailing lists, probably as result of the complaints by list owners. As well, many who posted comments at the web site were warned, if they contained the phrase "RootsWeb" in the message (and several other keywords associated with mailing lists), that their message contained objectionable language and that if they continued, their internet service provider would be notified. Cliff has blocked listowners and the words ROOTSWEB, STEAL, STOLEN and LIST OWNERS from the system. It will give you an "Inappropriate words" error and you must change it. Some believe that GenForum's goal is to have a web site with a high visitor count so that they can attract advertising dollars. Another issue is that whatever is said on the Forum can be later used by CLiff for monetary gain. I am including a couple of very applicable messages from the beginning of this issue. At 07:05 PM 7/16/97 -0400, John Fuller wrote: >Hi Cliff: > ><< GenForum is fully aware of Genealogy Resources of the Internet at >http://users.aol.com/johnf14246/gen_mail.html and in no way does our content, >graphics, or format resemble John and Chris's site. If it is the surnames >that are similar and that you think we have copied from them, then you need >to get your information straight. John and Chris have taken the list of >mailing lists from RootsWeb, and republished them on their own site. John >and Chris could be liable for republishing RootsWeb's list of mailing lists. >>> > >Obviously you have been misinformed. As any of the owners of the lists on >rootsweb can tell you, I have been the one who has worked with them on their >entries for the Genealogy Resources on the Internet file. Once the list >owners and I have decided on these entries, I pass them to rootsweb for >inclusion in their list of lists. Therefore, any thought that Chris and I >have copied the rootsweb list of mailing list is patently false. This message >is being provided to these list owners and they are welcome (and urged) to >comment as appropriate. > >In addition, you include a significant number of surnames and variations on >your web pages that are associated with mailing lists that are not on >rootsweb ... and they track exactly with the list of mailing lists in the >Genealogy Resources on the Internet file. One wonders where you came up with >these surnames since the associated mailing lists are not served by rootsweb. >I tend to doubt that you spent the long hours that I have to track them down >... and coordinate with the list owners. This is obviously the result of >copying the information from the Genealogy Resources on the Internet web >pages. > ><< Now in response to whether we have infringed on RootsWeb: The RootsWeb >people are fully aware of GenForum and we have been talking to them, and will >resolve the issue shortly. >> > >The issue from the perspective of Chris and I is not one of infringement on >rootsweb ... there is no doubt in our minds, and those of other prominant >members of the genealogy community, that you have extracted index information >from our web pages and the infringement is therefore on what we have >laboriously produced. I feel that the rootsweb list owners will confirm that >we have served their needs and done so with the support and blessing of the >rootsweb leadership. To profess that you did not use the information that >Chris and I have compiled is beyond our belief. > ><< We think GenForum is a very resourceful and useful service. And we also >know that we need the support of RootsWeb to make GenForum what everyone >knows it can be. The RootsWeb people were very understanding and we will >come to an agreement regarding the copyright issues. We will keep you posted >on the outcome. >> > >Again, the copyright issue in this case is the extraction of information from >the Genealogy Resources on the Internet file, not rootsweb information. While >you address the surnames and variations for the rootsweb lists, you also have >numerous surnames and variations that are not part of the rootsweb inventory. >The compilation of surnames and variations on your web pages are obviously >what Chris and I have on our web pages ... and you had no legal right to copy >this information. > >>> the only All of the surnames has been taken from RootsWeb and is that >if any one wants to push the issue, then John and Chris's web site would be >infringing on a copyright of RootsWeb. Yes, the surnames used in the >GenForum project are very similar to the ones listed on John and Chris's >site, however, John and Chris >> > >While this paragraph was incomplete, your information is totally incorrect as >stated earlier. The information on our web pages is original ... and >carefully coordinated with the list owners. You have extracted this >information from our web pages in violation of copyright restrictions and >Chris and I respectfully request that you remove your web pages. > >John Fuller >[email protected] > >Sat, 19 Jul 1997 06:25:18 -0700 >I have before me hardcopies of ~maillist from RootsWeb and Cliff >Shaw's original pages from before this little mess began. > >Cliff's pages are essentially identical to ~maillist. The overlap >in both names and the equivalence groups of names is in excess of >97%, and contains hundreds of absolute dead giveaways like >"Homespun" and equally obscure names. > >I expect that Cliff's list is even more similar to either older >versions of ~maillist or John Fuller's list on AOL (which shares >substantional material with Steven Schlossman's ~maillist). > >Moreover, Cliff has told me in private e-mail that he used the >material. > >That's not accusation, insinuation, nasty remarks, or hate mail: >IT'S A SIMPLE IRREFUTABLE SKY-IS-BLUE FACT THAT CLIFF USED JOHN/ >STEVEN'S LISTS. > >I think that behavior at least qualifies as a "pretty sneaky act". > >Cheers, B. > > >-- >Dr. Brian Leverich Co-moderator, soc.genealogy.methods/GENMTD-L >RootsWeb Genealogical Data Cooperative http://www.rootsweb.com/ >P.O. Box 6798, Frazier Park, CA 93222-6798 [email protected] And this message from Brian Leverich this morning: > >As many of you are aware, GENFORUM.COM spammed all the RootsWeb lists >tonight. > >It killed our mail server, and judging by the e-mail we've received >it irritated a lot of folks. > >Here's what we've done at RootsWeb: > >We captured and killed as much of the spam as we could, and I'm >trying to bring the mail server back on line. > >I've written to Cliff Shaw to tell him we'll be sending him a bill >for damages after we clean up the wreckage, and we expect him to pay >promptly. > >I've also written to all the upstream providers of his Internet >connection, asking them to share a personal growth opportunity with >him. > >What a sleaze. *sigh* -B > Sorry this is so long. If any of you have questions, please email me privately. Dana Listowner -- Dana Whisonant-Schulter http://www.angelfire.com/biz/kryptkeeper/