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=1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	MSGID_RANDY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,5432105ddc0f9cb4
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com>
Subject: Re: Beginner
Date: 1999/12/20
Message-ID: <83m8op$ifq$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 562992386
References: <385C6459.B80BD641@cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
 <385D169B.438749BF@quadruscorp.com> <83k354$28j$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <83lfe1$v6i$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <83m0td$cn3$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x33.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 204.48.27.130
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Dec 20 21:57:47 1999 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDtedennison
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.6 [en] (WinNT; I)
Date: 1999-12-20T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <83m0td$cn3$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
  Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <83lfe1$v6i$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>   Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com> wrote:
> > If someone would independently html'ize the LRM, I'd never
> > need to visit adahome again.
>
> Seeing as the HTML version of the RM is clearly a derived work
> which can only be distributed if the conditions of the original
> author are met (see copyright notice in the RM), it seems clear
> that this is either not distributable at all, or is freely
> distributable. Since it is on the web site, it seems reasonable
> to assume that it it freely distributable, and that the terms
> of the original copyright notice apply.
>
> It would be nice if Intermetrics would clarify the status
> of this document.

Didn't Intermetrics assign the copyright to the U.S. Government?

I don't think this is a GPL-type situation where part is covered by the
GPL and part is not, rendering the whole thing undistributable if the
non-GPL part is incompatable with the GPL. The distribution terms on the
LRM's license don't have any "infectious" clauses like the GPL and LGPL.

I've heard the argument that the copyright on the html-tagging of the
document may be bogus. But as an individual, I don't think I'd want to
risk potentially commiting a violation in hopes that I'd win any court
action that might be instituted against me. The best thing would
probably be to redo it from scratch, as we are doing with the FAQ.

--
T.E.D.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.