dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) (11/30/90)
In alt.sources jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: > * Use, duplication, and disclosure prohibited without > * the express written permission of the author. > * > * Non-commercial (profit-making) source distribution permitted > * provided this notice remains intact. If use, duplication, and disclosure is prohibited without express written permission, and no such express written permission has been supplied, what's the point of posting this to alt.sources? Even if such permission is available, it's quite meaningless to ask for non-disclosure of any code that's posted to Usenet. "Non-commercial (profit-making)"...isn't that an oxymoronic phrase? What has Usenet come to? (At least, what has the alt.* hierarchy come to?) -- Rahul Dhesi <dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com> UUCP: oliveb!cirrusl!dhesi
sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) (12/02/90)
dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) writes: |In alt.sources jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: |> * Use, duplication, and disclosure prohibited without |> * the express written permission of the author. We've gone over this 1000 times. Copyright law cannot limit use or disclosure! It can only limit duplication and public performances! Most of Haugh's copyright restrictions are bogus. Sean -- *** Sean Casey <sean@s.ms.uky.edu> *** "Live the journey, for each destination is but a doorway to the next..."