Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!know!samsung!xylogics!bu.edu!mirror!necntc!necssd!harrison
From: harrison@necssd.NEC.COM (Mark Harrison)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: copyright on books
Message-ID: <387@necssd.NEC.COM>
Date: 29 Jun 90 14:32:02 GMT
References: <1168@umb.umb.edu>
Organization: NEC America Inc. SSD, Irving, TX
Lines: 31

In article <1168@umb.umb.edu>, karl@umb.umb.edu (Karl Berry) writes:

> Kernighan's books are not ``free'' in the FSF sense -- the
> source is not freely available for people to
> look at, modify, and redistribute.  Therefore, it is
> consistent to not cite such sources.

I am not saying that it is inconsistent, but that it is intellectually
dishonest not to cite one's sources, whether they are copyrighted or
in the public domain.  In this specific case, I am also saying that
it is rude and spiteful to refer to Kernighan as an information hoarder.

> In general, I believe that the underlying principle
> is that anything which can be easily copied should be
> legal to copy, including book manuscripts.

Does this refer to *anything* which can be easily copied?  How about
patents, works of art, etc.  Does the FSF believe in *any* intellectual
property rights?

> Disclaimer: I do work for the FSF, but I don't speak for it,
> or Richard Stallman.

If someone who does speak for the FSF can clarify their position, I would
appreciate it.  I am willing to believe their intentions are good, but
I am concerned about the apparent attitude that any material that does
not conform to the party line cannot be mentioned.
-- 
Mark Harrison             harrison@necssd.NEC.COM
(214)518-5050             {necntc, cs.utexas.edu}!necssd!harrison
standard disclaimers apply...