Andrew Ho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, 15 Oct 2003, Adrian Midgley wrote: > > > This comes from a joint committee of our universities. > > It is opinion, however I would expect it to be given considerable > weight > > if someone was deciding what the law might be. > > > > http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/services/elib/papers/pa/fair/intro.html > > Thanks Adrian! > > ------------------------- here is the relevant part: > 9. Posting on a Network > > It is not fair dealing to post part or all of an electronic > publication on > a network or WEB site open to the public. > > Clearly posting part or all of an electronic publication on a > network, or > WEB site open to the public, has a much wider purpose than the > creation of > a single copy for the purpose of individual's research or private > study. > It therefore falls outside the scope of fair dealing. > > Scenarios > ... > Joe wants to cut-and-paste portions of other Web sites into his own. > This > may or may not be fair dealing. > ... > ---------------------- end quote > > This set of guidelines are clearly flawed. Not making the needed > distinction between part vs. all is a huge problem.
I think you will find, Andrew, that the guidelines are merely interpreting the underlying UK copyright legislation, which under the Berne convention is broadly similar to copyright legislation is just about every other rich country (and most Two- Thirds World countries). As free, open source advocates, we strongly advocate respect for and strict adherence to copyright law. I am deadly serious. Not just because it is the law (a good reason in itself, since we always seek to act lawfully), but also because without copyright law, the GPL and other copyleft open source licenses are toothless and worthless. Tim C
