Re: Generation of permutations

[dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar)]

Wes Groleau <wesgroleau@despammed.com> wrote in message news:<3CD001D9.286614CC@despammed.com>...

> 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.

He does not have to "claim copyright". Putting something on the net does
not automatically release rights!

> As the author of the changes, I could have put better wording
> on it, true.

The point is that you can't even make the changes without permission

>> By copying this software without taking the trouble to check on the status,
> 
> See above.

You cannot assume no answer is a negative answer. If you send a letter to
Disney saying "I plan to videotape Lion King next week from my seat in the
theater and I am going to put it on my web site. If you do not respond
immediately, I will assume that means you are giving me permission.",
then that's not good enough :-)

> 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.

The doctrine of adverse posession, and similar principles probably do apply
to intellectual property, though case law is scattered, and I don't know of
any case that's fully on target here (I did not do a Westlaw search, so I am
going off my own limited knowledge here, any reference to the contrary would
be interested).

But those kind of principles apply over a long time. The author in this case
could reasonably say:

I put this out so people can use it in accordance with the copyright law, and
in particular so that they can copy it where fair use provisions of the law
apply, and as far as I am concerned any personal use is fair use, but if I
find IBM has been using it, I will come and get them!

> 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.

Once again, you can register at any point in the future, while the copyright
is still in effect, so that is no protection