Re: migrating away from the FDL
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 03:08:55PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: From the perspective of the freedom the two projects protect, only the GNU project admit commercial activity directly... Er... what? -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgpSq4ulv3x4C.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: the Ode to my Goldfish
Thomas Hood claimed: A Secondary Section is a named appendix or a front-matter section of the Document that deals exclusively with the relationship of the publishers or authors of the Document to the Document's overall subject (or to related matters) and contains nothing that could fall directly within that overall subject. (Thus, if the Document is in part a textbook of mathematics, a Secondary Section may not explain any mathematics.) The relationship could be a matter of historical connection with the subject or with related matters, or of legal, commercial, philosophical, ethical or political position regarding them. [FDL v.1.2] This is a pretty restrictive condition on what can be dubbed Invariant. (It seems to have been crafted in order to describe the GNU manifesto.) The goldfish ode pretty clearly would not satisfy it. Sure it would. I wrote this software because my goldfish inspired me. The Ode is describing the relationship of the author to the software. It satisfies all the requirements above. That's why it's a good example. :-)
Re: migrating away from the FDL
Thomas Hood [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: RMS is the philosopher king of the Free Software Foundation. Whether he is also autocratic, that is, a dictatorial ruler, I don't know because I am not a member of the FSF. As a GCC developer, I can tell you: He is autocratic. Sadly. --Nathanael
Re: migrating away from the FDL
Brian Calson said: I realize (and this is a gross generalization; please pardon me) that people that have stronger ties to the FSF and GNU are more likely to feel that the GFDL is free than those that have stronger ties to Debian. This may be true overall, but my sense is that among GCC developers, most believe that the GFDL is not free, at least if it includes Invariant Sections (which the GCC manual does). Many GCC developers appear to think that the manual doesn't *need to* be free, but that's a different matter. :-) (They are much like the Debian Developers who think that non-free non-programs should be allowed in Debian main, except that the GNU project *doesn't* promise that it will remain 100% free software, and Debian *does*.) --Nathanael
Re: migrating away from the FDL
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 03:08:55PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: From the perspective of the freedom the two projects protect, only the GNU project admit commercial activity directly... Er... what? DFSG #1, Free redistribution - free as freedom, what GNU cares about too - free as beer, what GNU does not care about (but it's frequently a consequence of the first freedom) The French translation of the DFSG is even more obvious about that, explicitely yelling free beer! (« Redistribution libre _et gratuite_ »). Regards, -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: migrating away from the FDL
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : Brian Calson said: I realize (and this is a gross generalization; please pardon me) that people that have stronger ties to the FSF and GNU are more likely to feel that the GFDL is free than those that have stronger ties to Debian. This may be true overall, but my sense is that among GCC developers, most believe that the GFDL is not free, at least if it includes Invariant Sections (which the GCC manual does). And are the gcc developers authors of this manual. If so, it's only up to them. except that the GNU project *doesn't* promise that it will remain 100% free software Are you kidding? The GNU project promises that every software will be free software and every documentation will be free documentation, both freedom as defined by the FSF. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: migrating away from the FDL
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : Thomas Hood [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: RMS is the philosopher king of the Free Software Foundation. Whether he is also autocratic, that is, a dictatorial ruler, I don't know because I am not a member of the FSF. As a GCC developer, I can tell you: He is autocratic. Sadly. According to the definition we brought to this list of autocracy (someone who thinks he got absolute power), I can discuss your point of view. RMS usually accept to read everyone's point of view (unless they are obviously offensive). So it cannot be that autocrat you're talking about. Indeed he leads some projects the way he wants to exactly and if you're in, you have to accept it or to leave. But he also gave you the freedom to take his software and to use it to make your own software. If every autocrat was giving the permission to execute / read / modify / redistribute their work, I wish to see many more autocrats out there. The way a project is managed/directed may only be an issue for people involved, in they can continue this project with another direction. In the GCC case, to name it, you're completely free to continue the project without RMS - but the project will not be the same at the end. That's all. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: migrating away from the FDL
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 05:57:17PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: The way a project is managed/directed may only be an issue for people involved, in they can continue this project with another direction. In the GCC case, to name it, you're completely free to continue the project without RMS - but the project will not be the same at the end. That's all. As has, in fact, happened before (egcs). -- John
Re: migrating away from the FDL
Scripsit Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] DFSG #1, Free redistribution - free as freedom, what GNU cares about too - free as beer, what GNU does not care about (but it's frequently a consequence of the first freedom) The French translation of the DFSG is even more obvious about that, explicitely yelling free beer! (« Redistribution libre _et gratuite_ »). I'd call that a maltranslation. DFSG #1 explicitly stipulates that the freedom must include the freedom to *sell* copies of the software (at least if bundled with the Hello World program). -- Henning Makholm Jeg kunne ikke undgå at bemærke at han gik på hænder.
Re: migrating away from the FDL
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 05:45:19PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: From the perspective of the freedom the two projects protect, only the GNU project admit commercial activity directly... Er... what? DFSG #1, Free redistribution - free as freedom, what GNU cares about too - free as beer, what GNU does not care about (but it's frequently a consequence of the first freedom) The French translation of the DFSG is even more obvious about that, explicitely yelling free beer! (« Redistribution libre _et gratuite_ »). So apparently, the French translation of the DFSG is not altogether faithful to the original. Not that it matters; you'd have to be an absolute fool to think that the FSF's definition of freedom didn't also preclude licenses which *prevented* someone from giving the software away. (The body of DFSG #1, que la license ne doit pas *empêcher* qu'on donne le logiciel gratuitement, captures the English meaning accurately.) -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgpQnCBQnIeU1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: migrating away from the FDL
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 08:06:51PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: Op zo 20-07-2003, om 13:06 schreef Andrew Suffield: A monarchy is an autocracy where (under normal circumstances) the monarch inherits their role, usually by blood relation or marriage. Well, seen the fact that RMS has always been the 'chief' of the FSF, this is still possible ;-) Not in the usual way, since RMS has promised not to reproduce. But he could still do the Roman thing and adopt an heir. Richard Braakman
Re: migrating away from the FDL
Mathieu Roy wrote: Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : Thomas Hood [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: RMS is the philosopher king of the Free Software Foundation. Whether he is also autocratic, that is, a dictatorial ruler, I don't know because I am not a member of the FSF. As a GCC developer, I can tell you: He is autocratic. Sadly. According to the definition we brought to this list of autocracy (someone who thinks he got absolute power), I can discuss your point of view. He thinks he has absolute power *over the FSF*. He makes no claims regarding anything *else*. However, the FSF is run as his personal fiefdom, in which his opinion is final, no matter *what*. This is not normal for a charitable organization, and I don't think it's entirely healthy, either. Essentially, the FSF is run more like a private foundation than a public charitable foundation. RMS usually accept to read everyone's point of view (unless they are obviously offensive). So it cannot be that autocrat you're talking about. So do many autocrats. This is more a kindness given by the monarch to his subjects than anything else, and that's exactly the tone which seems to emanate from RMS. Indeed he leads some projects the way he wants to exactly and if you're in, you have to accept it or to leave. Which is fine to a certain extent; Linus Torvalds does the same thing with Linux. However, RMS treats the FSF (and all FSF projects) this way. This means that giving money to the FSF is really not significantly different from giving money to RMS personally to do with as he pleases. The Board of Directors appears to be ineffectual. *That* is unfortunate. I considered giving money to the FSF, but when I realized this, I decided it was a bad idea to do so. I'd rather give money to a real charitable organization than to an individual with erratic views. Your mileage may vary. I'm still willing to give copyrights to the FSF, but *only* because the 'grantback' term in the copyright assignment form gives me the right to relicense my work under the terms of my choice. But he also gave you the freedom to take his software and to use it to make your own software. If every autocrat was giving the permission to execute / read / modify / redistribute their work, I wish to see many more autocrats out there. Yes, that would be nice, wouldn't it? :-) -- This message, insofar as it was created by me, is released to the public domain.
Re: migrating away from the FDL
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And are the gcc developers authors of this manual. If so, it's only up to them. Don't you mean copyright holders instead of authors? Last I knew, GCC work required you to assign copyright to FSF, so I expect the manual is the same.
Re: Implied vs. explicit copyright
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes: Drew Scott Daniels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is the an implied copyright notification (I.e. code added by person) sufficient in the debian/copyright or is it necessary to say explicitly say year copyright person? There is no such thing as implied copyright. But he didn't say there was. He said there was an (implied (copyright notification)), which there is. In the USA, setting down a form of art is sufficient to grant copyright. So writing Extra Foo added by Brian Sniffen is enough to make readers aware that I own the copyright on the Extra Foo bits. In some places, the incantation Copyright (c) 2003 Brian Sniffen has legal meaning. Even in the US, it's illegal to falsely place such a notice. The only legal form of a copyright notice is the word Copyright, and a C-in-a-circle. The (c) version does *not* count as a C-in-a-circle, so it's just meaningless extra stuff. The word Copyright is fully sufficient without C-in-a-circle as well. The Pan-American Copyright Convention requires the words All rights reserved, so it is common to include those, which would get you coverage in any signatory to that convention who isn't part of the Berne convention. But there is no such thing as an implied copyright notification either; there is either a copyright notification or there isn't. The Berne Convention and US law say that you are covered even if you don't put a notification, but that's a different beast.
Re: migrating away from the FDL
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And are the gcc developers authors of this manual. If so, it's only up to them. Don't you mean copyright holders instead of authors? Last I knew, GCC work required you to assign copyright to FSF, so I expect the manual is the same. It depends, cf. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2003-05/msg01926.html.
Re: migrating away from the FDL
Mathieu Roy wrote: My question is: what's the right way to do this? If all contributors agree, can I just drop the FDL from my 'legalese' paragraphs, replacing it with a reference to the GPL, or do I have to mention the fact that previous versions were licensed under the FDL? Do I have to wait for a new update of those documents, or can I just go ahead and change the license without changing the licensed text? Normally you can drop the ref. to the FDL completely. But note that if someone got a copy under the GNU FDL, he is free to continue to distribute it as GNU FDL, even if he knows that you relicensed it to the GPL. As author, you can relicense your production as you want, without changing the licensed text (at your option). What about contributors who sent patches of maybe 5 lines? They'd have to be contacted as well, since they contributed to the FDL version and hence implicitly released their patch under the FDL, no? Regards, Joey -- GNU GPL: The source will be with you... always. Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.
Re: migrating away from the FDL
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 08:50:49PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: Mathieu Roy wrote: My question is: what's the right way to do this? If all contributors agree, can I just drop the FDL from my 'legalese' paragraphs, replacing it with a reference to the GPL, or do I have to mention the fact that previous versions were licensed under the FDL? Do I have to wait for a new update of those documents, or can I just go ahead and change the license without changing the licensed text? Normally you can drop the ref. to the FDL completely. But note that if someone got a copy under the GNU FDL, he is free to continue to distribute it as GNU FDL, even if he knows that you relicensed it to the GPL. As author, you can relicense your production as you want, without changing the licensed text (at your option). What about contributors who sent patches of maybe 5 lines? They'd have to be contacted as well, since they contributed to the FDL version and hence implicitly released their patch under the FDL, no? A contribution of that size will probably not constitute copyright interest (too small). Accumulating several patches of this size from the same person would, though. The border is hazy here; I think the FSF usually throws a figure around in the region of 10-15 lines. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | pgppz5t5hpsYP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Implied vs. explicit copyright
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 11:28:56AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: The (c) version does *not* count as a C-in-a-circle, so it's just meaningless extra stuff. Precedent and jurisdiction, please. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | pgpHmugm9F9g3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Implied vs. explicit copyright
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 11:28:56AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: The (c) version does *not* count as a C-in-a-circle, so it's just meaningless extra stuff. Precedent and jurisdiction, please. A trivial web search brought up: http://wombat.doc.ic.ac.uk/foldoc/foldoc.cgi?copyright That's a nonofficial source. But a brief web search will show you that the same thing is repeated a gillion times. The US Copyright office reports (at http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html) that the notice should contain: the symbol C-in-a-circle, or the word Copyright, or the abbreviation Copr.. C-in-parens is not C-in-circle. There is no exception granted for doing the closest thing you can. Indeed, it used to be that the word Copyright was not sufficient; you *had* to use c-in-a-circle. One reason that was changed was the increasing use of publishing systems that couldn't do c-in-a-circle. At http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.html you can see more rules, for example, that there is such a thing as an omission of notice and that certain kinds of errors are automatically considered the same as outright omitting the notice entirely. If there isn't the required c-in-a-circle or the word Copyright, then it's not just a mere error, it counts as an omission of the notice entirely. So more to the point: there are many many references which say c-in-parens doesn't count, there is a reference which says what does count, and it doesn't include c-in-parens, and there is a reference which says that even trivial errors in certain parts of the notice count as no notice at all. Thomas
Re: Implied vs. explicit copyright
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: That's a nonofficial source. But a brief web search will show you that the same thing is repeated a gillion times. Everything I've read so far has claimed that (c) has no force of law, whereas c-in-a-circle does. However, I'm unaware of a court decision saying so one way or another. Non-legislative interpretations are nice, but it doesn't have weight like judicial precedent. Futhermore, in the US, the only thing such an omission would do is effectively remove the copyright statement, not invalidate the copyright itself. I would not be surprised if you could make the claim that in systems where there is no equivalent of a c-in-a-circle, (c) fulfills the same role. I'd be genuinely surprised if most US courts didn't buy that argument as well. [I can't speak for other court systems, however.] there is a reference which says that even trivial errors in certain parts of the notice count as no notice at all. But as far as no notice goes, it still doesn't invalidate the copyright; it just means that a defendant in such a case can claim that they weren't aware of the copyright and avoid whatever the appropriate escalation of damages is. Now that we've gone through that, when you're copyrighting something, the smart money is on doing _both_. Use Copyright (c) 1997 Foo Bar Baz. Blah Blah Blah. Unless I've totally missunderstood the situtation at worst, (c) will be interpreted as a no-op, and the copyright statement will still control. At best, (c) will be equivalent to c-in-a-circle, and you're still at the same situation. Although I still wonder whether ascii art c-in-a-circle symbols are ok. ___ / \ | C | 1997 Foo Bar Baz. No Rights Reserved. \___/ Don Armstrong -- It seems intuitively obvious to me, which means that it might be wrong -- Chris Torek http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpT5ujNPCXbX.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Implied vs. explicit copyright
[NB: I'm subscribed... don't need to be CC'ed.] On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: In general, such claims don't work, because of the whole point of the statement: to have a single, unambiguous, bright-line test for what is a valid copyright notice, so that no interpretation, guesswork, or the like is necessary. Definetly. If I was to give advice, it would be to use 'Copyright (c)' etc. I was just playing devils advocate for a second and noting that there has been no precedent saying that (c) is not equivalent to c-in-a-circle (at least to my knowledge.) Because of that, it's not possible to know if (c) 1997 Foo bar Baz is a valid copyright statement, or an invalid one. ___ / \ | C | 1997 Foo Bar Baz. No Rights Reserved. \___/ Except that No Rights Reserved would, in Pan-American-Copyright-Treaty cases, void your copyright. Yerp. But it's fun to say, no? ;-) Don Armstrong -- [Panama, 1989. The U.S. government called it Operation Just Cause.] I think they misspelled this. Shouldn't it be Operation Just 'Cause? -- TekPolitik http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=59669cid=5664907 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpLtxRBE0Lxy.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Implied vs. explicit copyright
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: That's a nonofficial source. But a brief web search will show you that the same thing is repeated a gillion times. Everything I've read so far has claimed that (c) has no force of law, whereas c-in-a-circle does. However, I'm unaware of a court decision saying so one way or another. Non-legislative interpretations are nice, but it doesn't have weight like judicial precedent. Of course, but the point is that the law is already very clear. I think the onus is one someone else to prove the contrary, given the clear text of the law and the history of anal-retentive interpretations of this particular sort of thing. And anyhow, it's easy enough to just put Copright there. Futhermore, in the US, the only thing such an omission would do is effectively remove the copyright statement, not invalidate the copyright itself. Right, but if there is no copyright statement, then there has been no notice of copyright. I would not be surprised if you could make the claim that in systems where there is no equivalent of a c-in-a-circle, (c) fulfills the same role. I'd be genuinely surprised if most US courts didn't buy that argument as well. [I can't speak for other court systems, however.] In general, such claims don't work, because of the whole point of the statement: to have a single, unambiguous, bright-line test for what is a valid copyright notice, so that no interpretation, guesswork, or the like is necessary. But as far as no notice goes, it still doesn't invalidate the copyright; it just means that a defendant in such a case can claim that they weren't aware of the copyright and avoid whatever the appropriate escalation of damages is. Right. Now that we've gone through that, when you're copyrighting something, the smart money is on doing _both_. Use Copyright (c) 1997 Foo Bar Baz. Blah Blah Blah. Unless I've totally missunderstood the situtation at worst, (c) will be interpreted as a no-op, and the copyright statement will still control. At best, (c) will be equivalent to c-in-a-circle, and you're still at the same situation. There is no harm for putting (c) down. Just always say Copyright. Although I still wonder whether ascii art c-in-a-circle symbols are ok. ___ / \ | C | 1997 Foo Bar Baz. No Rights Reserved. \___/ Now, *that* might meet the terms of the statute. Except that No Rights Reserved would, in Pan-American-Copyright-Treaty cases, void your copyright. Thomas
Re: Implied vs. explicit copyright
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 04:12:28PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: So more to the point: there are many many references which say c-in-parens doesn't count None of which are legally significant. there is a reference which says what does count, and it doesn't include c-in-parens, and there is a reference which says that even trivial errors in certain parts of the notice count as no notice at all. So in brief, there is no basis in law for the statement that (c) is not valid as a notice of copyright. If your lawyer can't make a convincing argument in court that (c) is an acceptable alternative to the specified symbol, in a medium which cannot represent the official symbol, then find yourself a better lawyer. (Whether they would win or not varies per jurisdiction) -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | pgpWbgl5Ma7K4.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Implied vs. explicit copyright
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So in brief, there is no basis in law for the statement that (c) is not valid as a notice of copyright. Sure there is. The law says that the following are the only valid things: C in a circle The word Copyright. The abbreviation Copr. The law says that making mistakes in this area means there is not an erroneous notice, but no notice at all. If your lawyer can't make a convincing argument in court that (c) is an acceptable alternative to the specified symbol, in a medium which cannot represent the official symbol, then find yourself a better lawyer. Except that the medium does permit the symbol Copyright, so that's no good. The effect of a notice is to increase damages for infringement and eliminate one kind of defense. The question is not did you know it was copyrighted, for which anything that communicates intent would be good enough. The question is much more rigid, it's was there a valid notice. If the notice is erroneous, then it counts as a valid notice provided it still communicates intent. But if the notice is omitted, then it doesn't communicate intent. And the law is explicit that if it lacks all three of c-in-a-circle, Copyright, and Copr., then it is not merely erroneous, but omitted. (Similarly, the date must be correct within one year or the notice is omitted [not just erroneous]; there is a list of such things, for which any mistake means there is no notice, not just an erroneous one.) At best you can argue that (c) communicates intent: communicates the information this is coprighted. But communicating that information just isn't relevant to getting treble damages or defeating an ignorance defense. So the law says, in no uncertain terms, that Copywrite (misspelled) is not a valid notice, period. Similarly, it gives no indication that (c) means anything at all, and it says explicitly that the copyright ID is a special magic token, any variation of which renders the notice officially nonexistent. So the moral is: put the word Copyright down, always. Thomas
Re: Implied vs. explicit copyright
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 05:42:20PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So in brief, there is no basis in law for the statement that (c) is not valid as a notice of copyright. Sure there is. The law says that the following are the only valid things: C in a circle The word Copyright. The abbreviation Copr. The law says that making mistakes in this area means there is not an erroneous notice, but no notice at all. This is a plausible argument. You should know by now that plausible arguments do not form a basis in law; rather, it is merely the position put forth by the counsel for the defence. Kindly refrain from treating it as anything else. In my country we have courts to make decisions where the legislature has failed to completely specify or consider a particular case. Although since you appear to be in the US, I admit that I don't know what your courts are supposed to be for. If your lawyer can't make a convincing argument in court that (c) is an acceptable alternative to the specified symbol, in a medium which cannot represent the official symbol, then find yourself a better lawyer. Except that the medium does permit the symbol Copyright, so that's no good. The effect of a notice is to increase damages for infringement and eliminate one kind of defense. The question is not did you know it was copyrighted, for which anything that communicates intent would be good enough. The question is much more rigid, it's was there a valid notice. If the notice is erroneous, then it counts as a valid notice provided it still communicates intent. But if the notice is omitted, then it doesn't communicate intent. And the law is explicit that if it lacks all three of c-in-a-circle, Copyright, and Copr., then it is not merely erroneous, but omitted. (Similarly, the date must be correct within one year or the notice is omitted [not just erroneous]; there is a list of such things, for which any mistake means there is no notice, not just an erroneous one.) At best you can argue that (c) communicates intent: communicates the information this is coprighted. But communicating that information just isn't relevant to getting treble damages or defeating an ignorance defense. So the law says, in no uncertain terms, that Copywrite (misspelled) is not a valid notice, period. Similarly, it gives no indication that (c) means anything at all, and it says explicitly that the copyright ID is a special magic token, any variation of which renders the notice officially nonexistent. All of this is more from the counsel for the defence. It is your interpretation of the law; it is not the law itself. The law, as formulated in the US, says this: - Copyright forms an acceptable notice - circle-C forms an acceptable notice (plus the year and name) It does not say this: - No alternate representations form an acceptable notice If it did, then you would not be able to post a notice of copyright in a medium which could reliably represent neither of these. Say, for example, a gzipped tarball - which stores neither, but instead can store a sequence of bytes representing one or the other. This could even be extended to an argument that since digital data is merely a representation of the stated acceptable forms, it does not in itself constitute a valid notice - so you can only make an acceptable notice on paper. I see nothing in the US copyright law which contradicts this, and it is consistant with many related precedents in many jurisdictions (copyright assignment must be made on paper, not via email). I do not think that a UK court would uphold either of these positions (I make no comment as to what a US court would do, since they frequently make decisions with no apparent basis in reality). I think that it is not implausible for any court to decide that (c) is an acceptable alternate representation of the circle-C sign in an ASCII text stream. Note that the circle-C sign is unreproducible in a C source file - it can only be represented. I stipulate, again, that there is no legislated decision one way or the other. And I am aware of no precedent in this matter. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | pgpVybJQEdkIK.pgp Description: PGP signature
