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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,c887193050c097ce X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-02-13 02:13:59 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!cyclone.bc.net!news-hog.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!newshub.sdsu.edu!newspeer.cts.com!galanthis.cts.com!127.0.0.1.MISMATCH!not-for-mail Sender: kst@king.cts.com Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Problem with GNAT modified GPL and SourceForge References: <3C625604.1C948A06@gmx.de> From: Keith Thompson Date: 13 Feb 2002 02:13:56 -0800 Message-ID: X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7 NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.68.192.180 X-Trace: 1013595236 nntp.cts.com 41235 209.68.192.180 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19966 Date: 2002-02-13T02:13:56-08:00 List-Id: "Marin David Condic" writes: > "Simon Wright" wrote in message > news:x7vg047ls6f.fsf@smaug.pushface.org... > > I was surprised (shouldn't have been, I guess) to find that our (UK) > > lawyers seem to place a different meaning on the phrase "public > > domain". They say we should not say "(c) XYZ plc 2002" on any document > > we are not intending to be used for publicity purposes because it > > "places the document in the public domain". I have no idea what this > > means to them, IANAL, but there certainly seems to be a difference > > between what these guys think and what most of us have come to > > understand by the phrase. [...] That is surprising. I had thought that the US and most European countries followed the Berne Convention for copyrights, so the rules should be about the same in most places. I seem to recall that "(c)" is not a valid copyright indication; you need either the c-in-a-circle symbol or the word "copyright". Could that be what you're referring to? > Maybe because it makes the work something accessible to the public? > As opposed to "company private" or "classified" or whatever else you > might want to do to make a work a private matter? I think you're talking about a "trade secret". > The terminology is certainly confusing. Obviously, one always needs to > consult legal counsel to be sure, but with a newsgroup as international as > this and the subject of copyright and licensing coming up fairly often for > one reason or another, it would help to have a shared understanding of what > was meant when using certain terminology. Indeed. Some sources of information about copyright (certainly better than my own semi-informed ramblings) are: (not currently available) -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst@cts.com San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> Cxiuj via bazo apartenas ni.