Re: Beginner

[Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>]

In article
<86puw1qq2m.fsf@ppp-159-176.villette.club-internet.fr>,
  Laurent Guerby <guerby@acm.org> wrote:

> RM> This document may be copied, in whole or in part, in any
form or
> RM> by any means, as is or with alterations, provided that (1)
> RM> alterations are clearly marked as alterations and (2) this
> RM> copyright notice is included unmodified in any copy.
Compiled
> RM> copies of standard library units and examples need not
contain
> RM> this copyright notice so long as the notice is included in
all
> RM> copies of source code and documentation.
>
> There is no obligation of making anything "freely available"
as far as
> I can tell.
>
> Magnus Kempe owns the copyright on the HTML annotations, and
the
> license prohibits making the HTML version available on any
public web
> site (intranet or ftp mirror of the tar.gz version is allowed
> though). It is my understanding that he also produced a
version with
> annotations which available commercially only.



OK, a little lesson about copyright!

When Magnus makes a derived version, both he and Intermetrics
(well actually the US govt) have copyright interests.

NEITHER can make copies of this derived work without permission
from the other, and indeed Magnus can't even make the derived
version without permission, but the original copyright gives
him this permission.

However, it ONLY gives him permission if he includes the
original copyright notice.

Does he in fact include it?

If not, then the derived version he is publishing clearly
violates the rights of the original copyright holder since
he is making a copy without following the licensing provisions
of the copyright.

If the derived version he is publishing DOES include the
above copyright notice, then the license to copy the ENTIRE
document is preserved.

The whole point of this copyright and license is to make it
IMPOSSIBLE to have proprietary non-redistributable copies,
modified or otherwise, of this document. Essentially it
functions just like the GPL in this respect.

I can't see any other interpretation of either the intent of
the original copyright holder, or the language that was used
to express this intent.

Now technically of course, only the US Govt is an injured party
if the Magnus distribution is improper. However, in practice it
is extremely difficult to imagine that Magnus could successfully
pursue a copyright claim of his own in this situation. The last
sentence is simply my own personal opinion, and I am not an
attorney :-)


The important thing to remember is that you cannot copy ANY
copyrighted information without permission of the copyright
holder. This applies for example to GPL'ed software. Such
software is fully protected by copyright. You cannot copy
it without permission. The GPL gives you a license to copy
with certain limitations, but if these limitations are violated,
then the copy is a potential copyright violation.

For example, if some company sends you some GPL'ed software
accompanied by an NDA that prevents you from redistributing
 this software, then they are not conforming
to the requirements of the license. Hence the act of sending
you a copy is a copyright violation, since they have no valid
license to copy.


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