Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
They are generally interpreted as having different implications;
must is a far stronger term.
Not in American law.
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(c) is the closest you can get to circle-C in one-dimensional ASCII
text. It's a pretty close reproduction of the symbol.
Except given that you *can* say Copyright exactly, and given that
they amended the statute just to provide for things that can't
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
And, despite what you've been arguing against,
* Copyright (c) 2003 Sample Author
I have not been arguing against this. Adding extra stuff is fine,
provided it doesn't materially impede clarity, and this of course
doesn't impede clarity.
I'm
Scott James Remnant [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I mentioned this thread to my solicitor earlier, just out of pure
interest, and he was on the opinion that as (c) or (C) are the most
common, not to mention closest, representation of the symbol in computer
source code that any sane judge would
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 03:43:19PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
[...] I still think it would be hard for the defendant to
convince a court that he was ignorant of the *de facto* convention
that people put (c) in computer programs to assert their copyright.
Actually, the convention is
On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 16:04, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 03:43:19PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
[...] I still think it would be hard for the defendant to
convince a court that he was ignorant of the *de facto* convention
that people put (c) in computer programs to
Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 10:38:10AM +0200, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
That says that you MAY include a coypright notice as defined in
section 401(b). If you choose to do so, then it MUST be
snip
You're doing it too. I see no MUST anywhere in section 401.
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 06:11:08PM +0200, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 10:38:10AM +0200, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
That says that you MAY include a coypright notice as defined in
section 401(b). If you choose to do so, then it
Hi,
Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 06:11:08PM +0200, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
If a notice appears on the copies, it shall consist of the
following three elements:
I believe that SHALL and MUST are equivalent in meaning in English.
But technically you're
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 07:55:09PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 06:11:08PM +0200, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
I believe that SHALL and MUST are equivalent in meaning in English.
But technically you're right, it doesn't say must.
They are generally
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 09:26:32PM +0200, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
If the law says something shall consist of certain things, then
there is no reason to assume that something else may also
qualify. Only the notice as given in this section allows you
to get the effect of
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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.
Oh, puhleez.
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 12:16:10AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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
Andrew Suffield wrote:
Actually the real law says may and shall. The must part is
another invention of the US Copyright Office.
(Title 17, Chapter 4, Section 401 (a) and (b))
That says that you MAY include a coypright notice as defined in
section 401(b). If you choose to do so, then it MUST
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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
[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
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/ |
`. `'
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:
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
[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,
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
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
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
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
[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
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 that doesn't really help
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?
Upstream explicitly states year copyright person.
Iirc, I read somewhere that (c) is not the same as the copyright simple
and
27 matches
Mail list logo
