Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!ginosko!xanth!xanth.cs.odu.edu!tadguy
From: tadguy@cs.odu.edu (Tad Guy)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: DNET V2.0 (or > )
Message-ID: <TADGUY.89Oct10123604@aethelbehrt.cs.odu.edu>
Date: 10 Oct 89 16:36:04 GMT
References: <579@nadia.UUCP> <TADGUY.89Oct9130935@aethelbehrt.cs.odu.edu>
	<20395@usc.edu>
Sender: news@cs.odu.edu
Organization: Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA
Lines: 38
In-reply-to: papa@pollux.usc.edu's message of 9 Oct 89 18:56:56 GMT

In article <20395@usc.edu> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes:
   In article <TADGUY.89Oct9130935@aethelbehrt.cs.odu.edu> tadguy@cs.odu.edu (Tad Guy) writes:
   >Umm, in the README: 
   >	``DNET (c)Copyright 1987-1989 Matthew Dillon, All Rights Reserved''
   >
   >However, I think the ``All Rights Reserved'' is bogus since Matt
   >distributes this on BIX and via FTP. ...

   Why should it be bogus? ``All Rights Reserved'' is the standard phrase
   used for retaining copyrights in South American countries.  

``All Rights Reserved'' causes all actions with the item copyrighted
to be under the discretion of the author.  Rights are granted to
others through more phrasing, such as that used by MIT for the X
Window System, will allows distribution, etc.  This release of DNet
had no distribution phrasing, so the plain ``All Rights Reserved''
takes effect.

   Distribution has nothing to do with retaining or relinquishing
   copyrights.  One can `distribute' software over a public network,
   such as bix and through FTP, and still mantain full copyright on
   it.

Yes, except that's not what's happening above.  My intention was *not*
to say Matt no longer has a copyright on DNet, but that the ``All
Rights Reserved'' is probably in error or needs clarifying phrasing,
since he encourages its distribution.

However, my point in the above to the original poster is that DNet is
not public domain (as the original requestor suggested), not the
validity of the copyright Matt uses.  I suggest that Matt be more
specific in his copyright.

Of course, I may be totally wrong.  
I can't find the copyright manual I had read a while back (and the one
I did find didn't support or deny any of the above...)

	...tad