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: Robert Dewar Subject: Re: Beginner Date: 1999/12/21 Message-ID: <83oan6$vk6$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 563350663 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> <86puw1qq2m.fsf@ppp-159-176.villette.club-internet.fr> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x35.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14 Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Dec 21 16:43:18 1999 GMT X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobert_dewar Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (OS/2; I) Date: 1999-12-21T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <86puw1qq2m.fsf@ppp-159-176.villette.club-internet.fr>, Laurent Guerby 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.