Also, I find the whole 'first name terms' thing where the director calls him "Aaron" all the time annoying. I saw the same thing when I was involved with Alan Turing-related events where people would refer to him as "Alan". They did not know him (in either case).

Note to future people: when I'm dead don't refer to me as "John" as if I was your friend or property.

What do you want people to call you -- "Mr. Graham-Cumming"? I wonder if that preference is based on your age or based on British culture (or maybe a little of both?). I think it's common to refer to virtually everyone in our society by their first name -- Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet, etc. You never hear them referred to as anything except their first names. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point...

Could be age or culture related; could also be that it's almost midnight and I'm patching another fucking WordPress vulnerability.

The question is: does the first vs. last name convention tie to the speaker (typically eulogy will be written by one who knew them, obituary likely not) or to the listeners. I'd suggest the latter, the same way a priest who didn't know the dead person would give the eulogy as if he knew them, because he is talking to their friends and family.

If 30 years after your death I were to write about your work then I would probably use full name or last name, whereas if someone asked "was he friendly on HN" then forename might be more appropriate?

How about using their internet handle?

Some of the less formal publications, such as Wikipedia[2], might drop the title (and as I had also done above), but it's generally considered improper to use first names in reporting.

[1] http://www-nc.nytimes.com/2011/08/25/technology/jobs-steppin...;

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz

I mean, after a certain level of understanding is set forth wouldn't first and last name become a little redundant and annoying? I imagine they say "Aaron" quite a bit. Saying "Aaron Swartz" 112 times just seems a little asinine.

Based on what? What exactly did he pioneer? I know that he stole all that stuff from his school and called it justice. What else did he do?

</tiredargument>

And no, Saint Ignucius is not allowed on it.

Given Knappenberger's proven track record thus far, I have every reason to believe this would be an outstanding documentary if funded.

I do not believe that Aaron would have agreed with the use of this non-freeculture license.

(This parallels the distinction between free software, on the one hand, and freeware and shareware, on the other hand.)

I don't recall Aaron's views about this issue, so I'm not asserting that he would have been upset about this. It should probably be possible to find documentation of his opinions.

Sure, it's easier to mashup video than compiled executables or libraries, but even CC is not quite equivalent to a software license.

WE HAVE ALSO DECIDED AFTER THE FILM IS COMPLETED TO RELEASE THE RAW INTERVIEW FOOTAGE AND POST IT TO THE INTERNET ARCHIVE IN SAN FRANCISCO THROUGH A SIMILAR CREATIVE COMMONS LICENSE.

(caps in original)

He was certainly deserving of praise, but his post-suicide lionization (and subsequent Carmen Ortiz bashing) does send some icky messages regarding suicide and its effect on one's legacy.

I also don't see any nobility in persisting in becoming a willing victim of what he was up against.

It prompts one to ask: What have you done to prevent such abuse from recurring?

   http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2120630809/the-hedgehog-and-the-hare-documentary-project-on-t

It would be good if they can get both sides and views in the same documentary.

Not necessarily. It depends on what the story in documentary is about. Absolutely nothing wrong with one POV in documentaries. Real devil is editing and narration which isn't structural in its function. By structural narration I mean narration written only to shorten some prologues to sequences in the story structure itself. With narration and editing you can distort your story in any way possible. I found out, through experience, that with sensitive subjects it's best to avoid narration altogether and tell story only through editing. Careful editing, where you weave story only through what you've been told by carefully selected interviewees.

The Kickstarter video for this campaign has given me a depth of knowledge, understanding, and connection when it comes to Aaron and his affect on the world and technology. I haven't come across a source, yet, that was able to illustrate his importance, humanity, and influence. Unfortunately, I don't see an external source for the video.

I would invite anyone wishing to know a bit more about Aaron, and the whole debacle, to watch the video.

I guess it was more about trying to bring the story to your average Joe rather than dive in super deep, I get that they have to cover the basics for larger audience.