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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,LOTS_OF_MONEY autolearn=ham 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: 2002-04-30 15:57:05 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Generation of permutations Date: 30 Apr 2002 15:57:05 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <5ee5b646.0204301457.52a492c3@posting.google.com> References: <3CCED088.61B3AAE2@despammed.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.38.244 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1020207425 20859 127.0.0.1 (30 Apr 2002 22:57:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 30 Apr 2002 22:57:05 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:23303 Date: 2002-04-30T22:57:05+00:00 List-Id: Wes Groleau wrote in message news:<3CCED088.61B3AAE2@despammed.com>... This seemed so seriously in error that I feel I should post a comment. > -- Tedious but important Legal Stuff: > -- > -- 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. Only the author of a piece of software can offer to assign the copyright to someone else, and this assignment is only valid if an appropriate instrument of assignment is signed by both parties. You can't just slap "copyright FSF" on something and think it is assigned even if you ARE the author, and if you are not the author, it is seriously wrong to pretend that you can do this assignment. By copying this software without taking the trouble to check on the status, the author of the above message is almost certainly committing a violation of the author's copyright. Wes then by posting this package has also committed a violation, and anyone copying this message will also be violating the 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 claim you didn't know. If you have access, and you copy, you are guilty. This is why it is SO essential to ensure that you have proper license to things you copy. For example, the mere fact that there is a GPL notice on file you obtain from the net does not mean you have the right to copy it. You have to first ensure that the copyright holder has in fact issued this license. You first have to find out who the copyright holder is. As this example shows, that may not be easy. I take the opportunity to write this off-topic contribution to this thread because this seems an area where a lot of people have a lot of very wrong ideas. Note that I am not an attorney, so this is not legal advice, merely my best understanding as an expert in copyright law on the state of things! Robert Dewar