I suppose there are documents that the church does not want available for public view, or would rather not have them easily available. Not that this is one, but do you want the temple ordinance available for public view?
Think a little harder :) As far as letting the copyright expire, you would have to take that up with the brethren as they are the ones who desire to maintain it. I suppose they have good reason. Maybe it is for some of the same reasons that my software and processes are patented by the church. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of jb Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 10:53 AM To: BYU Unix Users Group Subject: Re: [uug] Copyright Craig J. Lindstrom wrote: >Think about what the church might own. > > /me thinks..... Nope, can't think of anything. Is there something dark in our history that would draw into question the veracity of our beliefs? Or are they sacred things we don't want to see out in the public? Either way, letting the copyright expire won't change anything since those who would flaunt our beliefs will do it whether or not they have permission. --jeremy >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >Behalf Of Ross Werner >Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 9:39 AM >To: BYU Unix Users Group >Subject: Re: [uug] Copyright > >On Fri, 11 Feb 2005, Craig J. Lindstrom wrote: > > > >>One of the uses of this software was to digitize a large collection of >>books, journal and manuscripts for the Church History Department so they >>could publish some material that the Copyright was about to expire. >>The current law is something like; "if you don't use the copyrighted >>material then the copyright can not be extended". The church desires to >>maintain ownership (copyright) of these documents, without copyright law >>all these documents would be public property now. Remember there are >>more important things than music and the latest video driver when >>considering copyright law. >> >> > >I'm not sure I get your point here. These are "historical documents" which >I feel are scholarly works which should be available to anybody who wants >to read them or research them. The only purpose for copyright or >"ownership" of these documents would be to *limit* their distribution. > >Why would it make one bit of difference to the Church whether these works >passed into the public domain, free for all to use, or not? They could >still publish the material just as freely as before. > > ~ ross > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >-------------------- >BYU Unix Users Group >http://uug.byu.edu/ > >The opinions expressed in this message are the responsibility of their >author. They are not endorsed by BYU, the BYU CS Department or BYU-UUG. >___________________________________________________________________ >List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list > -------------------- BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ The opinions expressed in this message are the responsibility of their author. They are not endorsed by BYU, the BYU CS Department or BYU-UUG. ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
-------------------- BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ The opinions expressed in this message are the responsibility of their author. They are not endorsed by BYU, the BYU CS Department or BYU-UUG. ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
