Re: [ql-users] Perfection etc. and Copyright
On 8 Oct 2004 at 18:34, Dilwyn Jones wrote: > > And just imagine the field days lawyers would have if they'd had to > plead > > whether something was moral or not. Shudder. > > > > Wolfgang > I thought you were a lawyer, Wolfgang? yup. > Or is that what you meant??? Well... Wolfgang www.scp-paulet-lenerz.com ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.quanta.org.uk/mailing.htm
Re: [ql-users] Perfection etc. and Copyright
> On 8 Oct 2004 at 11:14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Moral copyright is all very well, until someone gets their solicitor onto > > you. Just because you're giving it away for free doesnt make it right. > > Mopral copyright is not very well - simply because what is moral to me isn't > to you, or vice-versa > > And just imagine the field days lawyers would have if they'd had to plead > whether something was moral or not. Shudder. > > Wolfgang I thought you were a lawyer, Wolfgang? Or is that what you meant??? -- Dilwyn Jones ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.quanta.org.uk/mailing.htm
Re: [ql-users] Perfection etc. and Copyright
On 8 Oct 2004 at 11:14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Moral copyright is all very well, until someone gets their solicitor onto > you. Just because you're giving it away for free doesnt make it right. Mopral copyright is not very well - simply because what is moral to me isn't to you, or vice-versa And just imagine the field days lawyers would have if they'd had to plead whether something was moral or not. Shudder. Wolfgang www.scp-paulet-lenerz.com ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.quanta.org.uk/mailing.htm
Re: [ql-users] Perfection etc. and Copyright
John Sadler wrote:- >Copyright was introduced so that the author could get a reasonable >recompense for his/hers efforts. >Of course when the lawyers have finished it all becomes unreasonable! >However that does not change the moral ideas behind copyright. >It seems totally unreasonable to me that people should be denighed the use >of an item because the authors have lost interest or just want to be to be >awkward. >Perhaps a little application of moral copyright would be the solution >provided of course there is no commercial benefit to anyone else besides the >author(s). Well, I wouldnt really agree with this, although I don't see the point of certain authors being awkward either. Having said that, should an author not want his work distributed, then thats that - it is his after all. Moral copyright is all very well, until someone gets their solicitor onto you. Just because you're giving it away for free doesnt make it right. Cheers, Darren. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify us immediately at [EMAIL PROTECTED] and delete this E-mail from your system. Thank you. It is possible for data transmitted by email to be deliberately or accidentally corrupted or intercepted. For this reason, where the communication is by email, the Bank of Ireland Group does not accept any responsibility for any breach of confidence which may arise through the use of this medium. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of known computer viruses. ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.quanta.org.uk/mailing.htm
Re: [ql-users] Perfection etc. and Copyright
Copyright was introduced so that the author could get a reasonable recompense for his/hers efforts. Of course when the lawyers have finished it all becomes unreasonable! However that does not change the moral ideas behind copyright. It seems totally unreasonable to me that people should be denighed the use of an item because the authors have lost interest or just want to be to be awkward. Perhaps a little application of moral copyright would be the solution provided of course there is no commercial benefit to anyone else besides the author(s). - Original Message - From: "gwicks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 8:23 PM Subject: Re: [ql-users] Perfection > > - Original Message - > From: "Phoebus Dokos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [ql-users] Perfection > > > . > > Not entirely true :-) I submitted that idea to my graduating supervisor > > professor at the uni and I was approved :-) That means that the ql-archive > > will be a reality (that is if I want to graduate in December ;-) > > For status now: I am finished with the database structure and most of the > > search code (in PHP). > > > > Glad to hear this, but I am not so interested in the technical side of the > archiving, but in the practical. I am not sure that the people who raised > this issue 2 months ago were all talking about the same thing. Pity there > was no proper discussion of this at the time. > > Practical problems are for example: > > 1: How do you make a complete inventory of all the QL software, both PD and > commercial, that has ever been published? This first stage could occupy a > team for months on end. > > 2: How do you contact the copyright holders and/or authors when there is no > up to date contact information? Specifically how would you solve the > QLiberator problem. > > 3: How do you sort out complicated copyright questions? For example Freddy V > gave permission for Perfection to become freeware, but not Spellchecker. Or > think of the situation with the EasyPtr upgrade. > > 4: How do you cope with the anal retention problem, where an author refuses > to release or modify code? (e.g. the Text87 problem.) > > If we are really serious about a software archive, then it should not be a > one man effort, but a team looking at these problems. > > Best Wishes, > Geoff > > > > ___ > QL-Users Mailing List > http://www.quanta.org.uk/mailing.htm ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.quanta.org.uk/mailing.htm
