TIFF and LibTiff Mail List Archive


2004.01.14 17:14 "[Tiff]", by Bob Friesenhahn
2004.01.14 17:46 "Re: [Tiff]", by Joris Van Damme
2004.01.14 18:45 "Re: [Tiff]", by Frank Warmerdam
2004.01.14 19:11 "Re: [Tiff]", by David Burken
2004.01.14 20:55 "Re: [Tiff]", by Andrey Kiselev
2004.01.14 21:33 "Re: [Tiff]", by Joris Van Damme
2004.01.14 22:29 "Re: [Tiff]", by Andrey Kiselev
2004.01.14 19:22 "Re: [Tiff]", by Bob Friesenhahn
2004.01.14 21:04 "Re: [Tiff]", by Andrey Kiselev
2004.01.14 22:06 "Re: [Tiff]", by Marco Schmidt
2004.01.14 22:40 "Re: [Tiff]", by Joris Van Damme
2004.01.14 22:57 "Re: [Tiff]", by Marco Schmidt
2004.01.14 23:16 "Re: [Tiff]", by Joris Van Damme
2004.01.14 23:22 "Re: [Tiff]", by Bob Friesenhahn
2004.01.14 23:39 "Re: [Tiff]", by Joris Van Damme
2004.01.14 23:47 "Re: [Tiff]", by Bob Friesenhahn
2004.01.14 23:05 "RE: [Tiff]", by karron
2004.01.14 23:57 "Re: [Tiff]", by Chris Cox
2004.01.15 00:11 "Re: [Tiff]", by Bob Friesenhahn
2004.01.15 11:37 "Re: [Tiff]", by Mike Williams
2004.01.15 12:32 "Re: [Tiff]", by Mike Williams
2004.01.15 13:46 "Re: [Tiff]", by Joris Van Damme
2004.01.15 15:55 "Re: [Tiff]", by Mike Williams
2004.01.15 16:10 "Re: [Tiff]", by Bob Friesenhahn
2004.01.15 16:37 "Re: [Tiff]", by Mike Williams
2004.01.15 17:02 "Re: [Tiff]", by Bob Friesenhahn
2004.01.15 17:00 "Re: [Tiff]", by Joris Van Damme
2004.01.15 18:06 "Re: [Tiff]", by Frank Warmerdam
2004.01.15 21:17 "Re: [Tiff]", by Joris Van Damme
2004.01.15 22:25 "RE: [Tiff]", by Richard Eckles
2004.01.15 22:50 "RE: [Tiff]", by Chris Losinger
2004.01.15 23:00 "[Tiff] Don't advertise your willingness to contribute...", by Peter Smith
2004.01.15 15:40 "Re: [Tiff]", by Joris Van Damme
2004.01.15 17:32 "Re: [Tiff]", by David Burken
2004.01.16 08:26 "Re: [Tiff]", by Rob van den Tillaart
2004.01.16 16:02 "Re: [Tiff]", by Bob Friesenhahn

2004.01.15 18:06 "Re: [Tiff]", by Frank Warmerdam

It would seem so - looking at the html the payment looks to go

That at least is defenite proof of faul intentions then.


Note, he only claims to use donations to provide the hosting function. Slimey but it would be hard to prove fraud. I would add that I presume the web site materials to be under the same license as the rest of libtiff in which case there is no problem with folks modifying and using it.

Posting something to

I agree. So, what are we going to post? Any candidates for writing up the text? If not, it's going to be me bigmouth.

Before posting anything to slashdot or elsewhere I would suggest you run it buy Andrey, me and Mike Welles.

Also, the site is hosted by Network Operations Center Inc. in the States, but it appears to be SPAM hoster. I imagine they are pretty immune to complaints.

Again, does it really matter?

It is pointless to try and harrass an organization that has gone over to the darkside supporting spam and domain piracy. They will be immune to normal complaints.


I'm not native English, in fact, I hardly speak English. Could you please de-abbriviate this for me? Unless if it's not very flattering... ;-)

I believe it is "ta ta for now"... sort of like "see you later".

May I guess who that negligant company is? Is one guess going to suffice?

It was Mike Welles old employer. It isn't their fault. They presumably registered it at his request or perhaps he just did it in their name.

> Obviously the company used predatory tactics since they immediately > populated with the original material.

Yes, indeed, and that is another definite sign of fault intentions.

It is vaguely possible the believe they are providing a service, though I am doubtful.

I think it doesn't even matter how this came about exactly, and what legal actions we can or cannot take exactly, and who's going to pay notice to our complaints exactly. If we are going to do this the 'correct' way, we'll grow a beard size of the Eiffeltower and still not accomplish anything. I understand Andrey has been trying to accomplish something the 'correct' way for quite some time now, so that should prove my point.

Well, I think he just made a few inquires a few weeks ago. It isn't like all options are exausted yet.

I think we need to put some predator actions on this matter ourselves. Let's really bother him. Let's

I'm asking a lot of 'anyone able and willing', I know. I also know that I have a talent for making noise, but am not always very good in writing up exactly correct texts. I hardly even master English. That's why I'm hoping someone else will do this. But if noone does, and people do not object to me doing it, then I will.

Let's put some action into this! The man messed with the wrong green-eyed stepchild, because it's OUR green-eyed stepchild.

Your passion is... overwhelming.

My opinion is that a next logical step would be for someone with passable German to try and contact the domain holder or some contact for one of his businesses to request the domain back. We can point out that we are willing to pay a very modest fee for the domain (say $100USD from me), and that there really won't be anyone else interested in it besides us.

If the "carrot" doesn't work, we can also threaten to initiate complaint procedures in the press, in the courts and perhaps with folks like Paypal though I don't think any of those avenues will give a particularly large hit if he is the scumsucker he would seem to be. What could get to him is if we were to repeatedly contact him trying to buy various domains from him, and once we have wasted some of his time, to explain that we want back. I'm sure he and his organization value their personel time.

No harm in you initiating the above Joris, if you wish. I would suggest not taking anything to the "press" till you have made at least a reasonably effort to contact him.

Best regards,

I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam,
light and sound - activate the windows |
and watch the world go round - Rush    | Geospatial Programmer for Rent