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=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,LOTS_OF_MONEY, MSGID_RANDY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,9e3fa322e453b2f9,start X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2000-12-27 14:00:39 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!news.infoave.net!cyclone-sjo1.usenetserver.com!news-out.usenetserver.com!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail From: Ted Dennison Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: www.adahome.com?... Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 21:53:43 GMT Organization: Deja.com Message-ID: <92dod3$vno$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <92d6cb$g57$1@nnrp1.deja.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.48.27.130 X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Dec 27 21:53:43 2000 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; en-US; m18) Gecko/20001207 X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x60.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 204.48.27.130 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDtedennison Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:3409 Date: 2000-12-27T21:53:43+00:00 List-Id: In article , tmoran@acm.org wrote: > >The maintainer of AdaHome was a rather mercenary sort. He slapped a > >copyright on pretty much anything he touched (including his copy of > >the LRM!). > Sounds more like he had an automated uploader that attached the > copyright notice. If you are suggesting that perhaps he had some dumb software that was inadvertantly copyrighting stuff that was clearly inappropriate, that documentably false. He did it knowingly and on purpose. This was discussed in great detail back when whe participated in c.l.a., and several times since. If I remember correctly, his rationale for copyrighting the FAQ was something along the lines that he wanted to prevent hostile forking of the FAQ. However, he also took care to require his permission for just about any commercial distribution of it. The LRM copyright seems to just have been a crass commercial act (he offers to sell his HTML FAQ on the site, and the licensing terms seem to be crafted to prevent you from legally acquiring a copy any other way). > Legally, the absence of a copyright notice wouldn't > give permission to copy either. True. But he copyrighted stuff that (arguably) he had no right to copyright. For instance, most of the FAQ entires were harvested directly off of c.l.a., with notice given to the actual authors after the fact. The Ada LRM already *has* a copyright, with quite different (and incompatable) licensing terms. So if he hadn't tried to copyright his HTML source of it (I say, *tried* because its debatable how valid that was), then the notice on the LRM copyright page which *does* allow copying would have been in force. -- T.E.D. http://www.telepath.com/~dennison/Ted/TED.html Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/