From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, LOTS_OF_MONEY,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,c42dbf68f5320193 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-05-01 08:15:10 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!nycmny1-snh1.gtei.net!cambridge1-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!bos-service1.ext.raytheon.com!dfw-service2.ext.raytheon.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3CD001D9.286614CC@despammed.com> From: Wes Groleau Reply-To: wesgroleau@despammed.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en,es-MX,es,pt,fr-CA,fr MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Generation of permutations References: <3CCED088.61B3AAE2@despammed.com> <5ee5b646.0204301457.52a492c3@posting.google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 09:55:21 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 151.168.144.162 X-Complaints-To: news@ext.ray.com X-Trace: dfw-service2.ext.raytheon.com 1020264954 151.168.144.162 (Wed, 01 May 2002 09:55:54 CDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 09:55:54 CDT Organization: Raytheon Company Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:23344 Date: 2002-05-01T09:55:21-05:00 List-Id: > > -- The original author claimed no copyright. In order to protect > > -- what seemed to be his intent, I am assigning copyright to the > > -- Free Software Foundation with the condtions below. I reserve the > > -- right to revoke this assignment if and when requested by the > > -- original author. > > This doesn't sound like legal stuff (tedious or otherwise) to me, it sounds > like a clear copyright violation. A lot of people (the writer of the above > presumably included) are under the illusion that an author must explicitly > "claim" copyright by including an explicit copyright message. This is totally > false under current law. All material is copyrighted unless the author > explicitly disclaims copyright. Poorly worded, I'll grant you. He did not claim copyright, nor did he disclaim it, unless you consider putting it on SIMTEL-20 (or allowing it to be put there) to be releasing rights. He also did not reply to e-mail inquiries that did not bounce. > Only the author of a piece of software can offer to assign the copyright As the author of the changes, I could have put better wording on it, true. > By copying this software without taking the trouble to check on the status, See above. > copyright. At $50,000 each, the statutory penalty for copyright violation, it > sounds like the author can get rich. :-) Note that it is not a defense to Having been on the plaintiff's side, I can assure you that it _is_ a defense to point out that the plaintiff knowingly ignored numerous similar offenses before jumping on one of them. (Although that was not "intellectual" property, so a court could say the situation is different. Last I heard, that applied in the U.S. IF it was registered at the Library of Congress. Of course, the fine then was $10,000, so the conditions may have also changed. So, form your own opinion, take your own risk. -- Wes Groleau http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau