erikmb@cd.chalmers.se (Erik Bryntse) (11/30/90)
COPYRIGHT -- WHY?? I am constantly amazed at all the large, "professional-looking" copyright messages that people put in their postings of relatively small programs. I simply cannot see the reason for this. Do you seriously beleive that someone might publish your program someday and pay you for it? Or are you afraid that someone will "steal" your idea? Do you think that a copyright message will prevent this? The same question applies to many journals of user clubs. In my opinion this newsgroup, as well as the user groups, are made specifically for distributing software and information about HP's calculators. Why complicate things with copyright messages? If you post something on c.s.h. it is distributed everywhere anyway. Many postings also have a passus that, in essence, says "Don't blame me if something bad happens when you use my programs". The interesting thing is that this also is written in MANY more words, in a professional style. Now, I can understand that Hewlett Packard need to put messages like that in their free software. But HP are a company, that usually sells things, that has a warranty. HP therefore need to clearly mark that "this program we give away, so do not expect us to support it". Is there really a need for the extensive type of disclaimers that people often use? Why are they used? Since I am active in a user group in Sweden, I often wish to publish programs that has copyright messages of the type "ask me first". Then I have to go through the trouble contacting the author, only to receive a "sure, go ahead and copy it". Of course it might be nice for the author to receive such requests from everywhere, but is this really necessary? When this copyrighted text is then to be printed in a magazine, you run across this type of message: "this copyright message must be preserved", and then some 10 lines of copyright, disclaimers, and so on. Either you simply ignore this, and publish the pr ogram anyway, or you print the copyright message in full. It doesn't look to nice to have lots of such messages all over your magazine, I can tell you! Now please note that I am NOT questioning the right to have a large program or other contribution copyrighted. With large I mean like SASS, KERMIT and Alonzo's internals texts. The type of thing I am questioning is copyrighting programs like my own TETRIS This is posted in order to start a discussion about this matter. It is not directed to someone in particular. Erik Bryntse / SHPRF (Svenska HP-raknarforeningen) erikmb@cd.chalmers.se
a309@mindlink.UUCP (George Lin) (11/30/90)
There are programs that went from shareware to commercial. G.O.M.F. (Amiga) first came out as shareware. When revision 2.0 came out, it was commercial. (I use this as an example because it was developed locally [Vancouver]) --------------------------------------- George Lin a309@mindlink uunet!van-bc!rsoft!mindlink!George_Lin
apm279l@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au (11/30/90)
>COPYRIGHT -- WHY?? (1) Protecting oneself! If you write software in a non-professional capacity you cannot afford to run any risk of litigation, and therefore you have a legal obligation to state that. Litigation could result (for example) if software is tampered with so that it becomes malevolent, or if it is not used correctly and causes some sort of damage. These are highly unlikely, but I'd never stake my house on it! (2) If you spend quite a bit of time on "your baby" you like to take some credit. You include your name for that reason, and so that people who find bugs or have suggestions know the name and address of the author and can make contact. If people remove the name, then you end up with a whole lot of versions, nobody knows who to go to for help, and there is a real risk of the introduction of viruses. It is far better to have a central source to whom people go with ideas which are implemented in successive releases. To ensure people (you don't know who is in the net) don't remove the author's name he or she has a moral obligation to provide us with the protection of a copyright notice. Besides, don't you think people deserve credit for their work when they offer it to us all free of charge? It's the least we can do to acknowledge them, and it makes a difference if a future employer has heard of you, and seen some of your work. >I simply cannot see the reason for this. Do you seriously beleive >that someone might publish your program someday and pay you for it? Of course not! otherwise I wouldn't have made my stuff public domain. >Or are you afraid that someone will "steal" your idea? Do you think >that a copyright message will prevent this? I, like most others HOPE THEY DO! ie, extend my software, provide fresh input etc, save me some time for my own work. >The same question applies to many journals of user clubs. They presumably include copyright notices for the same reason. >Why complicate things with copyright messages? Unless you *do* want to steal an idea or sell someone else's work, there is no complication - the standard copyright message states this clearly ("...may be distributed freely and or modified..." or words to that effect). Copyright can and is framed in such a way as to remove any obsticle to legitamate use. >If you post something on c.s.h. it is distributed everywhere anyway. I know! That's why I post here! I don't care a pair of dingo's kidneys who uses my software - the more the merrier - but it is copyright for the (good) reasons above. >Many postings also have a passus that, in essence, says "Don't blame me if >something bad happens when you use my programs". The interesting thing is >that this also is written in MANY more words, in a professional style. I don't see your point here. If you mean we all use the same standard notice (or similar), then it's because we don't want to have to get legal advice each time! OK *most* net.users are entirely honest. If there *were* (though I don't see it) a reason for authors to cut the copyright as an act of good faith, they then have to expect equally good faith from 100% of a large group of people they don't know. >Now, I can understand that Hewlett Packard need to put messages like that in >their free software. But HP are a company, that usually sells things, that >has a warranty. HP therefore need to clearly mark that "this program we give >away, so do not expect us to support it". You can sue an individual more easily than a company. >Is there really a need for the extensive type of disclaimers that people >often use? Why are they used? If authors were to stop including indemnities they'd then be legally negligable in not having spelled out the rights of those using their work. I have a right to know where I stand when I use your work. If you don't tell me, I can assume I can do what I want and you will be solely liable for the consequences - that *is* how a court would probably see it unless you could *prove* it was my fault. God help you if something you write has a virus in it! Have you ever read how much damage was done world-wide by the internet worm? >Since I am active in a user group in Sweden, I often wish to publish programs >that has copyright messages of the type "ask me first". Then I have to go >through the trouble contacting the author, only to receive a "sure, go ahead >and copy it". Of course it might be nice for the author to receive such >requests from everywhere, but is this really necessary? The standard copyright notice says "distribute freely", almost all authors say this. If you know some who don't, well that's their right! I can only imagine they had their reasons, and since they are offerring their work to you free of charge, you can't complain! However, virtually everything I've got from the net says you are free to distribute it; you could publish this stuff with no problems. Perhaps your complaint should be directed at authors who use non-standard copyright notices; let them know the hassles they cause and ask them to consider that before using such a clause. >When this copyrighted text is then to be printed in a magazine, you run >across this type of message: "this copyright message must be preserved", and >then some 10 lines of copyright, disclaimers, and so on. If you don't like it, then publish only your own work - you are currently using work done by others for your own benefit. > Either you simply ignore this, and publish the program anyway, THEN YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO EXPLOIT PEOPLE'S WORK IN THAT WAY AND I HOPE YOU GET CAUGHT! So HP users, an HP employee is admitting to breaching your copyrights. May we take this to mean we can breach theirs? Perhaps I'll use my 28's IR hookup to dump its rom to disk, do as Erik Bryntse does and delete the copyright, and run it through a disassembler before placing it in the public domain (with *my* name on it of course, as the person who decoded it). This would be HIGHLY immoral as HP employees spent a great deal of time working on the 28, and deserve the credit. I realise you can draw a distinction between you HP hat and your User's Group hat; I gave this example only to draw an analogy. >or you print the copyright message in full. Or you take the more inteligent course and ask permission to cut it down. >It doesn't look to nice to have lots of such messages all over your magazine, >I can tell you! Certainly, but authors deserve credit and legal indemnities. It might be a hassle for you to contact them and come to an arrangement, but it would be a bigger hassle for them if you land them in court. Do you take credit for the time you spend on your publication? Then give the people who spent the hours doing the *real* work which made it possible their rights. >Now please note that I am NOT questioning the right to have a large program >or other contribution copyrighted. With large I mean like SASS, KERMIT and >Alonzo's internals texts. The type of thing I am questioning is copyrighting >programs like my own TETRIS It is the right of an author to decide what to copyright. I certainly don't copyright everything, but I did copyright my debugger - it took more time than you might think, and has considerable scope for new ideas/releases if people want it. The copyright notice says "distribute freely" - you are welcome to print it. If you need to cut it down let me know, but I want my name and address on it in case your members come up with good ideas. If you want to remove the indemnity clause, you can so long as it appears elsewhere (eg a note on your back page covering all the programmes in the issue), if you do this then it would be polite to let me know so I can be sure I'm OK. Make sure the note *DOES* cover us though - yes, it is almost inconcievable that I'd ever need to call on it, but my wife and I like our house and car! >This is posted in order to start a discussion about this matter. It is not >directed to someone in particular. OK - I gave my programme as an example. >erikmb@cd.chalmers.se Peter Hawkins
lennartb@lne.kth.se (Lennart Boerjeson @ KTH/LNE, The Royal Inst. of Tech.) (11/30/90)
In article <75116.275699bc@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au>, apm279l@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes: > >>COPYRIGHT -- WHY?? [...lots of emotions...] The need to insert a copyright notice in anything your mind or body produces arises from the US tradition to sue your neighbour at ANY perceived or imagined wrong, and from the lack of restraint or common sense in the courts. So please don't flame the US people for their legal paranoia, they need it. We other, luckier peoples, can just ignore it. Which reminds me of a joke I once heard, relating to the relative success of Japanese industry (I have no idea if the numbers told in the joke have anything to do with reality---who cares? It's funny!) : "In USA, there are 500 lawyers per engineer. In Japan, there are 500 lawyers." !++ ! Lennart Boerjeson, System Manager ! School of Electrical Engineering ! Royal Institute of Technology ! S-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden ! tel: int+46-8-7907814 ! Internet: lennartb@lne.kth.se !--
akcs.dnickel@hpcvbbs.UUCP (Derek Scott Nickel) (12/02/90)
Well, as long as we are doing lawyer jokes...
What is the difference between a dead lawyer in the middle of the road
and a dead snake in the middle of the road??
There are skid marks in front of the snake.
(Don't kill me, al lawyer told me this...)
Derek S. Nickel