Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!ucsd!usc!bbn.com!cosell
From: cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: While we're flaming about copyrights...
Message-ID: <55898@bbn.BBN.COM>
Date: 8 May 90 16:50:45 GMT
References: <=X833-ggpc2@ficc.uu.net> <435:May611:29:3590@stealth.acf.nyu.edu> <2498@litchi.bbn.com> <3927@munnari.oz.au>
Sender: news@bbn.com
Lines: 45

echidna@eric.ecr.mu.oz (Eric H. Echidna) writes:

}In article <2498@litchi.bbn.com>, rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) writes:
}>	[..]
}> 
}> Look, if you want to post something to Usenet, just give the goddamn thing
}> away.  Sorry about the swearing, but this is really getting totally ridiculous.
}>	[..]

}Without wishing to join in the "Gee my Copyright is so good" war, but
}wishing to register a vote for sanity as expressed by Rich Salz, here 
}is what we consider to be a good copy-free notice for people wishing to
}distribute truly free software.
}(Taken from our VOGLE/VORT distributions)

...

}This software is public domain and may be used for any purpose commercial or
}otherwise. It is offered without any guarantee as to its suitability for any
}purpose ...

}What else could you want?

One minor thing in the above. Talking about just vanilla copyrights,
for the moment, just as the Berne convention implicitly reserves
copyrights to authors, and so in large copyright notices are redundant
and/or unnecessary, BUT are still worthwhile anyway since the make any
potential lawsuit potentially less expensive and with a higher prob of
prevailing, here too a nod to the uniform commercial code is probably
in order.  I *DONT* remember the precise wording [I could dig it out of
the Federal Codes upstairs in the BBN Library if necessary], but there
is a "legally correct" way to word that disclaimer that makes it
*unequivocally* outside the realm of UCC recourses.  I seem to recall
words like "merchantability" or some such as being part of the
by-the-book wording.   If you're going to go to the bother of trying to
limit your liability, you might as well use the right words.  [in fact
it will usually be shorter (although not as clear to a layman, but it
ain't gonna be a layman that drags you into court... , just as if what
you want is vanilla copyright, just saying "Copyright 1990 ..." is a
LOT shorter than a long rights-statement spelling it out [and making
reference to 'fair use', etc, etc], just saying the right UCC-approved
disclaimer will render moot the need for all of the other "we promise
nothing" verbiage.

  /Bernie\