ast@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum) (05/09/91)
Open letter to everyone who has contributed utility programs or other
recognizable software to MINIX. As a practical matter, it does not apply
to bug fixes and other items that would not be recognizable as copyrightable.
It also doesn't apply to those people who have already filled in the permission
form. This step does not mean that anything is going to change. It is just
that the lawyers want to know that they really have permission to use people's
software. It is also useful to me to know what is copyright and what is
public domain. At present, this is not always clear. Lack of any notice
usually means copyright, but not always (depends on whether the country it
was written in was a signatory to the Berne Convention at creation time.)
Andy Tanenbaum (ast@cs.vu.nl)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prentice-Hall would like to have the intellectual property rights in
the MINIX software more explicitly spelled out. What I would like to
do is have you formally copyright the MINIX software you have written,
in your name, and then have you grant PH a nonexclusive right to use it.
That way you retain full rights to your software but PH's lawyers know
that they are allowed to use it. Lawyers are funny like that.
Could you please tell me the year the software was written and the
exact name to use for the copyright. Copyright notices always have
the form:
Copyright 1990 by John Doe
I will include that in all future releases of the software. The next
step is for you to cut this message along the dashed line, print it
out, read it, and hopefully sign it and send it to me by post office mail.
Alternatively, you can put the software into the public domain, in which
case you lose all your rights. Intermediate forms such as "This is public
domain except that you can't ..." have no legal validity. The GNU copyleft
would never stand up in court, but FSF is safe because their software is also
copyright, which will stand up in court if need be. Please let me know
what you would like to do. My own suggestion is that you keep your copyright
so you have control over your work. Of course if you want to retain copyright
and do not wish to grant Prentice-Hall permission to sell and license it,
please let me know and I will remove it from MINIX.
While I am at it, I'd also like to get the same permission for using your
software in Amoeba. Thus after the dotted line are two copyright forms.
When printing them, please be sure they come out on two separate pages.
Each is 66 lines.
Thank you very much.
Andy Tanenbaum
Dept. of Math and Computer Science
Vrije Unversiteit
De Boelelaan 1081a
1081 HV Amsterdam
The Netherlands
- - - - - - - - - - - - - cut here and print the portion below - - - - - - -
I hereby grant permission to Prentice-Hall, Inc. of Englewood Cliffs, NJ
to incorporate software I have written, known as
(Put names of programs here)
and referred to hereafter as The Software, into the MINIX operating
system subject to the following conditions.
1. I retain the copyright to The Software.
2. I retain the right to grant other parties permission to use The
Software in any way and under any conditions I see fit, including
commercial use of The Software.
3. Prentice-Hall shall display my name in all copies of The Software
and shall specify that I am the author.
4. Prentice-Hall shall have the right to modify and improve The Software.
5. Prentice-Hall may sell or license The Software without paying me any
fees or royalties.
6. This permission is worldwide and applies to all versions of MINIX,
including versions that may be made in the future.
......................................
Printed name(s)
......................................
Signature(s)
......................................
Date
I hereby grant permission to the Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
to incorporate software I have written, known as
(Put names of programs here)
and referred to hereafter as The Software, into the Amoeba operating
system subject to the following conditions.
1. I retain the copyright to The Software.
2. I retain the right to grant other parties permission to use The
Software in any way and under any conditions I see fit, including
commercial use of The Software.
3. The Vrije Universiteit shall display my name in all copies of The Software
and shall specify that I am the author.
4. The Vrije Universiteit shall have the right to modify and improve The Software.
5. The Vrije Universiteit may sell or license The Software without paying me
any fees or royalties.
6. This permission is worldwide and applies to all versions of Amoeba,
including versions that may be made in the future.
......................................
Printed name(s)
......................................
Signature(s)
......................................
Datewaltje@uwalt.nl.mugnet.org (Fred 'The Rebel' van Kempen) (05/20/91)
ast@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum) wrote: > Open letter to everyone who has contributed utility programs or other > recognizable software to MINIX. As a practical matter, it does not apply > to bug fixes and other items that would not be recognizable as copyrightable. Humm. > It also doesn't apply to those people who have already filled in the permission > form. This step does not mean that anything is going to change. It is just > that the lawyers want to know that they really have permission to use people's > software. It is also useful to me to know what is copyright and what is > public domain. At present, this is not always clear. Lack of any notice > usually means copyright, but not always (depends on whether the country it > was written in was a signatory to the Berne Convention at creation time.) HummHumm. Does filling in this form mean that one actually gives Prentice Hall permission to sell the software for profit? Usually, programs intended for a general public (see "GNU Copyleft" and such) have the clause that "this software may not be used for commercial purposes". Looking at the way MINIX is going, I am getting really confused when I see postings like these appear on the net (admitted- I saw this form a _long_ time ago, but what the heck). Could you please explain this in public? I think Prentice Hall has a right to know which software they can use and which not, but I also think they should tell the people what they will do with their rights. Non-exclusive right to _use_ the software (see below, in the form) includes the non-exclusive right to _sell_ that product for profit. Nothing about such matters can be found in the form... I hereby would like all people to shell out and rewind to the "Your articles sold for Cash" discussion some time ago, in which The MINIX Centre (UK) was accused of making true money off other people's work, posted on the net as "here is my work, please feel free to _use_ it". Before anyone sends in this form (myself included, of course), I would like to see several of these items cleared up. Andy? PrenHall? Regards, Fred. -- MicroWalt Corporation, for MINIX Development waltje@uwalt.nl.mugnet.org Tel (+31) 252 230 205, Hoefbladhof 27, 2215 DV VOORHOUT, The Netherlands "An Operating System is what the _USERS_ think of it- me"
mitchell@MDI.COM (Bill Mitchell) (05/21/91)
In article <9105201140@uwalt.nl.mugnet.org> waltje@uwalt.nl.mugnet.org (Fred 'The Rebel' van Kempen) writes: >ast@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum) wrote: >> Open letter to everyone who has contributed utility programs or other >> recognizable software to MINIX. As a practical matter, it does not apply >> to bug fixes and other items that would not be recognizable as copyrightable. >Humm. > >> It also doesn't apply to those people who have already filled in the permission >> form. This step does not mean that anything is going to change. It is just >> that the lawyers want to know that they really have permission to use people's >> software. It is also useful to me to know what is copyright and what is >> public domain. At present, this is not always clear. Lack of any notice >> usually means copyright, but not always (depends on whether the country it >> was written in was a signatory to the Berne Convention at creation time.) >HummHumm. > >Does filling in this form mean that one actually gives Prentice Hall >permission to sell the software for profit? Usually, programs intended >for a general public (see "GNU Copyleft" and such) have the clause >that "this software may not be used for commercial purposes". > >Looking at the way MINIX is going, I am getting really confused when I >see postings like these appear on the net (admitted- I saw this form >a _long_ time ago, but what the heck). Could you please explain this >in public? > >I think Prentice Hall has a right to know which software they can use >and which not, but I also think they should tell the people what they >will do with their rights. Non-exclusive right to _use_ the software >(see below, in the form) includes the non-exclusive right to _sell_ >that product for profit. Nothing about such matters can be found in >the form... > >I hereby would like all people to shell out and rewind to the "Your >articles sold for Cash" discussion some time ago, in which The MINIX >Centre (UK) was accused of making true money off other people's work, >posted on the net as "here is my work, please feel free to _use_ it". > >Before anyone sends in this form (myself included, of course), I would >like to see several of these items cleared up. Andy? PrenHall? > Yes. Please. Let's clear this up. I'd hope to see the non-PH-copyright stuff freely distributable by whoever wants to distribute it, with no restriction on selling it for profit. Such a restriction only discourages/retards distribution. Nobody is going to make a zillion dollars distributing this stuff, and if they do they've distributed it widely enough to have done the world a favor. Settle for Fame & Glory, but don't expect Riches from your contributions. Allow PH to distribute it bundled in with copyrighted minix. Discourage PH from interfering with others who also distrubute non-PH-copyright minix related items. -- mitchell@mdi.com (Bill Mitchell)
rhyde@feller.ucr.edu (randy hyde) (05/23/91)
I would like to know if the discussions of "Your Articles Sold for Cash" is archived somewhere. I am interested in including various news group` messages in a monthly CD-ROM magazine and I'd like to get people's feelings on it. Technically, anything posted to internet without an explicit copyright is probably PD (look at the internet charter and the way stuff gets distributed` around here). But I don't want to unduly pi*s anyone off. *** Randy Hyde BTW, The inclusion would be a service to the CD-ROM magazine readers, provided in addition (i.e., as a bonus) to everything else. We wouldn't actually be selling the articles themselves.
ast@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum) (05/24/91)
In article <14645@ucrmath.ucr.edu> rhyde@feller.ucr.edu (randy hyde) writes: > >Technically, anything posted to internet without an explicit copyright >is probably PD (look at the internet charter and the way stuff gets >distributed` Absolutely not. Look at the copyright law. The Berne convention, to which just about every industrial country is a party, including the U.S. since about 1988, clearly states that all books, articles, music, plays, and other forms of intellectual property are automatically copyright by the author at the moment they are expressed. A copyright notice is NOT required. In fact, in Europe, copyright notices are frequently omitted. Of course putting in a copyright notice warns the reader that the material is copyright, but it is just as copyright without it. The only exception I know of is that works produced by the U.S. government are not copyright. The government feels you should get something for your money. Andy Tanenbaum (ast@cs.vu.nl)
rhyde@koufax.ucr.edu (randy hyde) (05/25/91)
>>> Absolutely not.
By putting your information on the net, you are giving implicit rights`
to copy it. That's exactly what the net does. Look at how the info in`
this news group gets distributed from machine to machine. I even know
of people who sell tapes of internet news to outfits who *for security
reasons* cannot be on the net. Alas, if someone wanted to push their
"copyright" on stuff posted to the net, I'm afraid they would have to
post an explicit copyright notice with appropriate limitations of rights.
Anyone who posts an arbitrary message to the net has lost control of how
that information gets copied (of course, another way to to set the
distribution, but even that can escape the region specified if someone copies
the message elsewhere). Berne convention aside, I'm confident material posted
to internet news would not stand up as copyrightable without an explicit
notice.
Anyone who posts to internet should be aware of the distribution policy, which
implies a lack of control over the copying and use of the material. Now if
someone were to put an explicit notice like "this info is for your own
edification and cannot be used for commercial gain" I could see a problem.
BTW, internet is paid for by the US Government. Part of the reason peons are
allowed on this system is for the dissemenation of information (which the Gov
wants to promote). That was what I was alluding to when I mentioned the
internet charter. Of course, there are non-internet news feeds (UUCP, usenet,
BIX, CI$, etc.). But those services and people using the internet news feeds
have to live with the rules, or lack thereof.
Note I am not saying that *legally* this is the way it really is. I'm
just saying that *it appears to me* (and I'm not a lawyer) that the idea
of controlling your copyright on a news post is rather ludicrous. You
gave up those rights by posting here in the first place.webber@csd.uwo.ca (Robert E. Webber) (05/25/91)
In article <14701@ucrmath.ucr.edu> rhyde@koufax.ucr.edu (randy hyde) writes:
.By putting your information on the net, you are giving implicit rights`
.to copy it. That's exactly what the net does. Look at how the info in`
.this news group gets distributed from machine to machine. I even know
.of people who sell tapes of internet news to outfits who *for security
.reasons* cannot be on the net. Alas, if someone wanted to push their
."copyright" on stuff posted to the net, I'm afraid they would have to
.post an explicit copyright notice with appropriate limitations of rights.
.Anyone who posts an arbitrary message to the net has lost control of how
.that information gets copied (of course, another way to to set the
.distribution, but even that can escape the region specified if someone copies
.the message elsewhere). Berne convention aside, I'm confident material posted
.to internet news would not stand up as copyrightable without an explicit
.notice.
.Anyone who posts to internet should be aware of the distribution policy, which
.implies a lack of control over the copying and use of the material. Now if
.someone were to put an explicit notice like "this info is for your own
.edification and cannot be used for commercial gain" I could see a problem.
...
.Note I am not saying that *legally* this is the way it really is. I'm
.just saying that *it appears to me* (and I'm not a lawyer) that the idea
.of controlling your copyright on a news post is rather ludicrous. You
.gave up those rights by posting here in the first place.
With regards to the original poster, anyone who expects to go into business
performing tasks of unclear legal implications should probably get a lawyer.
The above approach is one way of looking at things. There are other
ways. Until a court rules which is the `official way,' the status of
net postings will be up in the air.
Things that counter the above comments would include:
1) When one connects to the net, there is no official license that
one signs giving away any rights. Thus, what we have here looks
more like a set of implicit conventions for handling matters
established by the community.
2) A situation that is perhaps similar is a typical broadcast
television station. Various programmers broadcast programming
into the airwaves and yet still claim a copyright over the
programming that restricts its rebroadcast.
3) At various times in the past people have tried to make money off
the net and there has usually be significant protest. Thus laying
the groundwork for a claim that it is not generally acceptable
behavior.
4) Current copyright law already distinguishes between presentation
different media - for example, I can go into a bookstore and
purchase a copy of a play, but I still am not permitted to give
a public performance of said play. Similarly with purchasing
music notation.
5) Back when there was experimenting with a satellite broadcast of
net news; some people opposing the project put distribution
restrictions in their messages and the people running the
satellite service at the time claimed to have honored the
restrictions (i.e., culled out the messages with the flag).
6) One could argue that what one is doing when one posts is a one
time performance to the audience of news readers (an audience
whose definition is not uncomparable to that of a tv audience).
7) Even printed publications that are given away sometimes include
copyright notice (such as advertisements). Are the images of
the models in such ads protected from being distributed outside
the context of such ads? Probably. Indeed, undoubtedly,
otherwise I am sure ad agencies would be more than happy to
edit the imagery of other ads inserting their own slogans.
The above is not meant to be a conclusive arguement that the quoted
arguement is wrong. It is just meant to indicate that the matter is
more complicated than the quoted arguement would lead one to believe.
And, of course, I ain't a lawyer either.
--- BOB (webber@csd.uwo.ca)