链接到二进制的伦理 [英] Ethics of linking to a binary

问题描述

我相信，在未经许可的情况下，用其他人的图像装饰您的

网站是普遍接受的，

是粗鲁和不道德的，即使图像也是如此是在公共场所，因为这样做是为了窃取带宽。


但是我遇到了人们正在联系的情况

我在我的网站上提供的其他类型的资源

未经我的许可，我有兴趣知道是否有
是对道德的共识这种做法。


我对科学计算中使用的

程序的（开放）源进行了一些小修改并编译后使用
Macintosh OS X上的
。我之所以这样做，是因为对

有兴趣而且有几个人在编译时遇到了问题或者

无法找到合适的源。我创建了一个页面，我在这里解释了程序是什么，其他版本是什么，

如何使用它，并提供了修改后的源代码和编译后的内容>
二进制文件下载。此页面已经使用了一年多，而且每天只需要几百次访问就可以获得
;二进制文件的下载

加起来我的每月带宽的一小部分略高于每GB
一千兆字节。根据你拼写OS X的方式，我要么是谷歌上这个主题的第一个链接，要么就是列表中的下方。

那个'''一切都很好，但看着我的推荐人我已经发现有几个人已经建立了他们自己的网页

，他们提到了这个程序并说了一些像你这样的东西可以

在这里下载它，从我的

网站直接链接到二进制文件。


这些看起来都很好，非商业性的（除了VersionTracker，

其中一个连接器）页面提供了有用的信息（一对夫妇用bb日语，但他们看起来很严重，就我而言可以告诉）。

我没有向这些网站的任何维护者抱怨，因为

我不确定他们做错了什么。这不是什么事情

我会考虑自己做，不是没有获得许可 - 它

对我来说非常类似于图像窃取的做法。

这看起来很奇怪，但是我想无意中，粗鲁。


请注意我并不反对深度的做法
链接，我认为这是完全正常的。这些不是我的一个页面的链接

，而是指向下载文件的直接链接，其中

作者已将我在我的页面上提供的上下文替换为

自己的上下文，没有提到我的网站，也没有链接到任何我的

页面。例如，我的页面有邀请发送评论或

如果使用该程序有问题，请联系，但是某人

遵循这些链接中的一个不会知道这个。这对收入没有任何影响;我的网站上没有广告。


我对任何意见感兴趣。
http://www.lee-phillips.org

解决方案

" Lee Phillips" < le*@leeHYPHENphillips.org.invalid>在留言中写道

news：sl **************** @ lees-computer.local ...

请注意我并不反对深度链接的做法，我认为这是完全正常的。这些不是我的某个页面的链接，而是指向要下载的文件的直接链接，其中
作者已经用我们的
自己的上下文替换了我在页面上提供的上下文，没有提到我的网站，没有链接到我的任何页面。例如，如果在使用该程序时遇到问题，我的页面会邀请我发送评论或联系，但是，如果有人关注其中一个链接，则不会知道这一点。这对收入没有任何影响;我的网站上没有广告。

我对任何意见感兴趣。

我会在下载页面添加注释，询问链接器链接到页面，

不是可执行文件。


我还会向那些现在提供
$ b $链接的人发送礼貌的电子邮件b可执行文件，建议他们更改指向您页面的链接，并解释原因。

您还应该考虑将可执行文件放在zip文件中（或者在

几种压缩文件格式中）。这将减少你的b / b
带宽的消耗，并且当XP SP2出现时也会使用户更容易，

这将使下载可执行文件变得更加困难。 />

Lee Phillips< le*@leeHYPHENphillips.org.invalid>写道：

我相信普遍接受的是，未经许可，用其他人的图像装饰你的网站
是粗鲁和不道德的，甚至是如果图像是在公共域中，因为这样做是为了窃取带宽。

但我遇到过人们正在链接到其他类型资源的情况我在我的网站上提供
未经我的许可，我有兴趣知道是否有关于这种做法的道德规范的共识。

与图像（带宽盗窃）相同的问题，除非它们链接到您的

下载页面，这是完全可以接受的。


- < br $>
Spartanicus

" Lee Phillips" < le*@leeHYPHENphillips.org.invalid>在留言中写道

news：sl **************** @ lees-computer.local ...

我相信它被普遍接受的是，未经许可，用其他人的图像装饰你的网站
是粗鲁和不道德的，即使图像是在公共领域，因为这样做是窃取带宽。


如果图片属于公共领域，人们将其从其他人的网站复制到他们自己的

网站，然后从他们自己的网站上提供服务，它是

既不粗鲁又不道德。如果你是从其他人的网站上为他们服务，那么他们会得到很多非预期的请求，那么显然这是一个

的侵犯。但是，为什么你会这样做，而不是仅仅从你自己的网站上为他们服务？

但是我遇到了人们正在联系的情况
我在我的网站上提供的其他类型的资源
未经我的许可，我很想知道是否有关于这种做法的道德规范的共识。

我做了对科学计算中使用的
程序的（开放）源进行一些微小的修改，并将其编译为在Macintosh OS X上使用
。我之所以这样做，是因为对它和几个人感兴趣编译时遇到问题或无法找到合适的来源。我创建了一个页面，其中我解释了程序是什么，其他版本可用，
如何使用它，并提供修改后的源代码和编译后的二进制文件供下载。此页面已经使用了一年多，每天访问量达到几百次;二进制文件的下载量相当于我每月带宽的一小部分，相当于一个千兆字节。根据你拼写OS X的方式，我要么是谷歌上这个主题的第一个链接，要么就是列表中的下方。
这一切都很好，但看着我的引用我发现有几个人已经建立了他们自己的页面
他们提到程序并说出你可以在这里下载这样的东西，并直接链接到来自我的
网站的二进制文件。

这些看起来都很好，非商业性（除了VersionTracker，
其中一个链接器）页面提供了有用的信息（一对夫妇
是日语，但据我所知，它们看起来很严重。
我没有向这些网站的任何维护者抱怨，因为
我不确定他们是谁做错了什么。这不是我想要自己做的事情，不是没有获得许可 - 它对我来说非常类似于图像窃取的做法。
这看起来很奇怪而且略有不同，但是我无意中认为，粗鲁。


IMO社会正确的方式是将人们引导到你有*下载链接的页面，如你所提到的那样。

请注意，我并不反对深度链接的做法，我认为这是完全正常的。这些不是我的某个页面的链接，而是指向要下载的文件的直接链接，其中
作者已经用我们的
自己的上下文替换了我在页面上提供的上下文，没有提到我的网站，没有链接到我的任何页面。例如，如果使用该程序时遇到问题，我的页面会邀请我发送评论或
联系，但是如果有人跟踪其中一个链接，则不会知道这一点。

这不仅对你有礼貌，而且对于那些下载文件的人来说也是有益的。

I believe it is universally accepted that decorating your
website with images from someone else''s, without permission,
is rude and unethical, even if the images are in the public
domain, because to do so is to steal bandwidth.

But I have run across a situation where people are linking
to other types of resources that I offer on my website
without my permission, and I was interested to know if there
is a consensus on the ethics of this practice.

I made some minor modifications to the (open) source of a
program used in scientific computing and compiled it for use
on Macintosh OS X. I did this because there was interest in
it and several people were having trouble compiling it or
couldn''t find the appropriate sources. I made a page where I
explained what the program was, what other versions were available,
how to use it, and offered the modified sources and the compiled
binary for download. This page has been up for over a year and
gets a couple of hundred visits a day; downloads of the binary
add up to a good fraction of my monthly bandwidth of a little over
a gigabyte. Depending on how you spell "OS X", I''m either the
first link for this subject on Google or way down on the list.
That''s all fine, but looking at my referrers I''ve
discovered that several people have built their own pages
where they mention the program and say something like "you can
download it here", with a direct link to the binary from my
site.

These all look like good, noncommercial (except for VersionTracker,
one of the linkers) pages that offer useful information (a couple
are in Japanese, but they look pretty serious, as far as I can tell).
I haven''t complained to any of these sites'' maintainers, because
I''m not sure they''re doing anything wrong. This is just not something
I would consider doing myself, not without obtaining permission - it
strikes me as pretty closely analogous to the practice of image stealing.
It just seems odd and slightly, but I suppose unintentionally, rude.

Please notice that I''m not objecting to the practice of "deep
linking", which I think is perfectly normal. These are not links
to one of my pages, but direct links to a file for download, where the
authors have replaced the context I provide on my page with their
own context, with no mention of my site and no link to any of my
pages. For example, my page has an invitation to send me comments or
get in touch if there is trouble using the program, but someone who
follows one of these links will not know this. This has nothing to
do with revenue; there is no advertising on my site.

I am interested in any opinions.
http://www.lee-phillips.org

解决方案

"Lee Phillips" <le*@leeHYPHENphillips.org.invalid> wrote in message
news:sl****************@lees-computer.local...

Please notice that I''m not objecting to the practice of "deep
linking", which I think is perfectly normal. These are not links
to one of my pages, but direct links to a file for download, where the
authors have replaced the context I provide on my page with their
own context, with no mention of my site and no link to any of my
pages. For example, my page has an invitation to send me comments or
get in touch if there is trouble using the program, but someone who
follows one of these links will not know this. This has nothing to
do with revenue; there is no advertising on my site.

I am interested in any opinions.

I would add a note to the download page asking linkers to link to the page,
not the executable.

I would also send polite emails to those now offering links to the
executables, suggesting that they change their links to your page, and
explaining why.

You should also consider putting the executable file in a zip file (or in
several compressed file formats). This will reduce the consumption of your
bandwidth, and will also make it easier for users when XP SP2 comes out,
which will make it harder to download executables.

Lee Phillips <le*@leeHYPHENphillips.org.invalid> wrote:

I believe it is universally accepted that decorating your
website with images from someone else''s, without permission,
is rude and unethical, even if the images are in the public
domain, because to do so is to steal bandwidth.

But I have run across a situation where people are linking
to other types of resources that I offer on my website
without my permission, and I was interested to know if there
is a consensus on the ethics of this practice.

Same issue as with images (bandwidth theft), unless they link to your
download page, that''s perfectly acceptable.

--
Spartanicus

"Lee Phillips" <le*@leeHYPHENphillips.org.invalid> wrote in message
news:sl****************@lees-computer.local...

I believe it is universally accepted that decorating your
website with images from someone else''s, without permission,
is rude and unethical, even if the images are in the public
domain, because to do so is to steal bandwidth.
If the images are in the public domain and people copy them to their own
site from someone else''s and then serve them from their own site, it''s
neither rude nor unethical. If you''re serving them from someone else''s site,
so that they get a lot of unintended requests, then obviously it''s an
encroachment. But then, why would you do that instead of just serving them
from your own site?

But I have run across a situation where people are linking
to other types of resources that I offer on my website
without my permission, and I was interested to know if there
is a consensus on the ethics of this practice.

I made some minor modifications to the (open) source of a
program used in scientific computing and compiled it for use
on Macintosh OS X. I did this because there was interest in
it and several people were having trouble compiling it or
couldn''t find the appropriate sources. I made a page where I
explained what the program was, what other versions were available,
how to use it, and offered the modified sources and the compiled
binary for download. This page has been up for over a year and
gets a couple of hundred visits a day; downloads of the binary
add up to a good fraction of my monthly bandwidth of a little over
a gigabyte. Depending on how you spell "OS X", I''m either the
first link for this subject on Google or way down on the list.
That''s all fine, but looking at my referrers I''ve
discovered that several people have built their own pages
where they mention the program and say something like "you can
download it here", with a direct link to the binary from my
site.

These all look like good, noncommercial (except for VersionTracker,
one of the linkers) pages that offer useful information (a couple
are in Japanese, but they look pretty serious, as far as I can tell).
I haven''t complained to any of these sites'' maintainers, because
I''m not sure they''re doing anything wrong. This is just not something
I would consider doing myself, not without obtaining permission - it
strikes me as pretty closely analogous to the practice of image stealing.
It just seems odd and slightly, but I suppose unintentionally, rude.
IMO the socially correct way would be to direct people to the page where
*you* have your download links, as you mention further down.

Please notice that I''m not objecting to the practice of "deep
linking", which I think is perfectly normal. These are not links
to one of my pages, but direct links to a file for download, where the
authors have replaced the context I provide on my page with their
own context, with no mention of my site and no link to any of my
pages. For example, my page has an invitation to send me comments or
get in touch if there is trouble using the program, but someone who
follows one of these links will not know this.

And not only is this a courtesy to you, but it''s of benefit to those who
download the files.

这篇关于链接到二进制的伦理的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！