I think copyright is a separate issue from archiving, right? Like, it’s an issue already, even without archiving.

I guess you could argue that if people write something in the Slack instance, they (at least supposedly, if they read Slack’s T&C) know what they’re doing. If then someone else takes the data without the author knowing that’s different.

So I’d say, yes, it’s already a matter before archiving, but yet it’s still another question/discussion for the archive.

Q: do the copyright concerns hold up if we consider the Slack a public forum? That is, think of a free art museum: anyone can come look. No one is authorized explicitly or implicitly to take the art. (And the archive could contain notices about “users retaining copyright to shared code/files/etc.”, but I would want a lawyer to write it.)

That analogy breaks down when you remember that artists consent to their art in the museum, but that’s where my public forum comes back: I’m not sure anything I say to you in public can be copyrighted. But I can give you a copy of an art piece which is still copyrighted. The question I suppose you raised is what are you allowed to do with that copy?

So, it looks like the concerns do hold up…

Yea, I think I addressed that in the next message :)

Another analogy: If you put code in a public Github repo without a license, by default others aren’t allowed to clone this repo, even if it’s public (at least that’s my understanding of copyright law).

In addition to <https://racket.slack.com/archives/C024AHJ6214/p1623248634005800|Sam’s proposal above> (addressing ‘informed consent’) I’m assuming that if anyone does raise a concern (either with slack mods or @ben.knoble) the relevant messages can be removed from the archive. With those measures in place can the archive be reinstated? It is a valuable contribution to the Racket community.

Yes, we would be happy to remove an entire user’s messages or individual messages.