As another comment points out, Le Guin herself does not call this a translation, so we shouldn't misrepresent it (although it might be my favorite English version).
However, it's not in the public domain. Her work deserves all the attention it can get, but I'd rather not see it pirated wholesale.
What on earth is it about intellectual property that breaks someone's mind so much that genuinely, when presented with a translation of a 2000 year old text that itself is based on another authors translation and who's translator is now dead, they go onto a website to proclaim "it's not in the public domain!".
> Does github have a way to report copyright violations?
What would reporting this GitHub repo do? Is the late Ursula K. Le Guin going to get a check in the afterlife? Her historical stance on copyright was based on consent. What happens when the author passes away?
I was wondering whether GitHub has a process for dealing with reports of obvious copyright violations. They don’t need thr copyright owner to weigh in.
I think the way to do it is to notify her estate and let them pursue it or not. But I'm really just here to say how I'm happy to pay her estate and publishers and everyone else should too.
Probably confusing it with spray grass seeds. From a distance, it does look a lot like green paint on dirt before it starts growing. Commonly used in the US for landscaping post-construction, especially after road work on steep slopes.
I see. Except Medicare isn’t currently an option for most people employed. I think there are some benefits to employer sponsered healthcare, particularly with large employers who can negotiate lower prices. But I’m not sure it’s better on balance.
Sometimes "aliens did it" makes more sense than a lot of the imaginative narrative that somehow explains 15 billion years in confidence of certainty. But yeah, I get your drift indeed.
> Stackoverflow is sort of like the anti-experts-exchange (minus the nausea-inducing sleaze and quasi-legal search engine gaming) meets wikipedia meets programming reddit. It is by programmers, for programmers, with the ultimate intent of collectively increasing the sum total of good programming knowledge in the world.
The key part is "minus the nausea-inducing sleaze" except that their behavior of late is exactly nausea-inducing sleaze.
>Atwood was bothered that the community doing all the work wasn't getting paid...
Yet, the contributors to the stacks don't get paid either. Now the creators and VC are trying to sell the stacks and make money -- exactly what he said his competitor was doing and shouldn't be.
> He and Spolsky decided to create an ad-supported free alternative, and released all answers under a Creative Commons license, so that the users could use the content elsewhere if Stack Overflow ever shut down or started charging for subscriptions.
Now they've decided to retroactively change content users created for them to their benefit.
> we will continue forward under version 4.0 of the CC BY-SA license. This change encompasses all Subscriber Content as described in our ToS including data dumps as well as any content previously made available by Stack Exchange under the terms of version 3.0 of the CC BY-SA license.
