Xref: utzoo alt.folklore.computers:10397 alt.sources.d:1656 comp.misc:11764 misc.legal:24551
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!ists!yunexus!oz
From: oz@yunexus.yorku.ca (Ozan Yigit)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,alt.sources.d,comp.misc,misc.legal
Subject: copyright status [Re: The Jargon File -- an apologia]
Message-ID: <22090@yunexus.YorkU.CA>
Date: 21 Mar 91 16:13:09 GMT
References: <1Zr0DW#37lgky6bXgdD31jqNy1Gg95B=eric@snark.thyrsus.com>
Sender: news@yunexus.YorkU.CA
Organization: York U. Communications Research & Development
Lines: 46

In article <1Zr0DW#37lgky6bXgdD31jqNy1Gg95B=eric@snark.thyrsus.com>
eric@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) writes:

>Thus, I have clear legal
>title to any book version, or any `derived work' incorporating
>substantial material from it.  I had to do this so I could make a
>legal contract with MIT Press.

This is understood, and reasonable. The next few lines are not meant
to question your right to assert such a copyright at some point.

>The copyright status of the on-line version itself is murky.  There is
>no copyright notice on it.

I do not know if it is necessarily that murky. We know with certainity
that the so-called jargon-1 (on-line version) is in the public domain.

After you started your changes and additions, you have released each new
version with references to "public trust" and "your document", and which,
in my interpretation, did not indicate a change in its original status. I
further believe the manner in which this jargon work was carried out takes
away any applicability of the "invisible" portion of the Geneva copyright
convention.

To be sure, I would not have paid much attention to this little detail at
all, if it weren't for the statements like the one below.

>The only change in policy I might make is to formally assert a
>`compilation copyright' on 2.8.1 over a note explaining that this has
>been done on behalf of the friends of the Jargon File, to protect it
>from abuse by persons not legally and ethically in contract with
>myself and the First Edition authors.

I believe it is legally reasonable to view the versions of the Jargon file
thus far posted/distributed without a copyright as a Public Domain document,
or to put it simply, "our document".

If I am wrong in this assessment, I would like a proper public explanation,
as soon as possible, so that we may assess any legal implications of our
use, abuse or alternate-editing of (at least) some versions of the jargon
file.

oz
---
Not all good things come with three	 | internet: oz@nexus.yorku.ca
pages of dogma and an attitude. - anon   | uucp: utzoo/utai!yunexus!oz