On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 23:55:40 +0100, in uk.d-i-y geoff
wrote:

In message , Andrew Gabriel
writes
In article ,
John Rumm writes:
The FAQ as it currently stands has attributions with email addresses for
many of the articles. I was proposing to loose the email addresses since
many are probably now out of date, and they poses a slight spam risk
for their owners (they are obfuscated in the code - which helps reduce
the risk significantly). Anyone have any feelings on the matter?

I can't see that you're gaining anything by doing that.
You need to retain details of the copyright ownerships
in any case.

Who has copyright on Andy Hall's contribution ?

Copyright ceeds to the estate of the deceased.

Is it worth clarifying the position with his family ?

No dont bother them

Phil