Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!mcdphx!riscokid.UUCP!fnf
From: fnf@riscokid.UUCP (Fred Fish)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Fred Fish on CDROM....now being advertised
Message-ID: <13654@mcdphx.phx.mcd.mot.com>
Date: 24 Sep 90 17:23:22 GMT
References: <222.filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us>
Sender: listen@mcdphx.phx.mcd.mot.com
Reply-To: fnf@riscokid.UUCP (Fred Fish)
Organization: Motorola Microcomputer Division, Tempe, Az.
Lines: 39

In article <222.filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us> filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us (Bela Lubkin) writes:
>All this discussion misses the only important point.  Does Xetec have
>permission from Fred Fish to distribute his collection in this manner?

Even though it was not necessary (see below) then did ask permission.

>If so, they are not doing anything wrong.  If not, then even if Fred
>does in fact approve of it, they are in the wrong and should get
>permission as soon as possible.  If they were or are denied permission
>then they should cease distribution immediately.

I have always explicitly disclaimed any compilation copyright on
the library.  This means that anyone can do whatever they wish with
the library or its contents without even bothering to contact me.
Any additional restrictions placed on the contents by the authors
are still in effect, but that is between the distributor and the
author to resolve.

>If they have Fred's permission, then I don't think the rights of any of
>the authors whose material appears in the collection are being violated.
>Many items prohibit certain types of distribution but give explicit
>permission to Fred Fish.  If Xetec's disk is an officially
>approved-by-Fred distribution method then it falls under the same
>exemption granted to Fred.  Otherwise, Xetec is also violating the
>rights of dozens of authors.

I don't think my "permission" is relevant.  I have no authority to
change any of the conditions imposed by the authors.  I try to avoid
including overly restrictive material, and have sometimes rejected
material that included a long "shopping list" of do's and don'ts,
even when I doubted that they would be enforcable.  As was demonstrated
by the Tetris case, what is legally enforcable and what can just
cause a lot of hassle are two very different things.

>Perhaps Fred or a representative from Xetec can comment.

Done.  :-)

-Fred