Re: [Steve Lidie <Stephen.O.Lidie@Lehigh.EDU>] Re: xodometer licensing
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
>On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:00:07PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Jeffry Smith wrote:
>> >John Galt said:
>> >> On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote:
>> >> >This statement of freely available, however, also conflicts with the
>> >> >examples given for "freely availableness", such as usenet. Nothing
>> >> >about a usenet posting implies free redistibutability. In fact,
>> >> >Usenet postings are all copyrighted, and unless specific other license
>> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >> Case law? Cite?
>> >Since, according to Copyright Law, all writings are copyrighted
>> >unless explicitly stated otherwise, yes, Usenet postings are
>> Said copyright law was made by the Berne Convention, which postdates this
>> license. In fact the previous standard was "PD unless stated" (that's
>> actually a stretch, the real law involved was that no rights were reserved
>> unless specifically stated, hence the "all rights reserved" language of
>> many copyright notices).
>And the fact that the AL was written prior to the current copyright
>law is relevant how? If A new law appears, which changes the meaning
>of something in a license, that certainly changes the DFSG freeness of
>the license. Or do you think that licenses are interpreted under the
>law as it was when they were written?
>Second, Perl was released in the mid-80s. The current copyright law
>is ten years older than that. I don't know exactly when the AL was
>written, but this would suggest that it postdates the Copyright Act of
The "copyright by definition" is codified in Berne and the DMCA. Think
1990 rather than 1970...
> sam th
> GnuPG Key:
Galt's sci-fi paradox: Stormtroopers versus Redshirts to the death.
Who is John Galt? email@example.com, that's who!