Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!uunet!stealth.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd
From: brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: A sample copyright with limited distribution
Message-ID: <3911:05:11:53@stealth.acf.nyu.edu>
Date: 14 Feb 90 05:11:54 GMT
References: <14124@s.ms.uky.edu> <1245@utoday.UUCP> <14147@s.ms.uky.edu>
Reply-To: brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Distribution: usa
Organization: IR
Lines: 44

Remember the (extremely close) analogy between USENET postings and
unsolicited mail.

In article <14147@s.ms.uky.edu> sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes:
> greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes:
> |Sorry, Sean, but I never agreed to this. Your previous postings show that
> |I need worry only about copyright law.  As such, I'll free to modify your
> |code as I see fit, remove your name and stick somebody else's name in there,
> |and to ignore your disclaimer (which I never agreed to) and sue the living
> |daylights out of you if my computer even hiccups once your software has
> |somehow gotten onto my machine...

Sorry, but that wouldn't be justified by copyright law.

The copyright notice is perfectly valid. Sean gives notice of his
copyright, then gives notice of limitations to the exclusivity of his
copyright.

No matter what, you can ignore the copyright within the bounds of fair
use. In this case, as Sean has limited his exclusive copyright, you can
ignore the copyright just as specified by his limitations. If Sean
distributed the work widely and for free, fair use would probably
justify Ross's making any number of additional copies and possibly even
distributing them---but not making money off it, and not distributing
modified versions without credit. After all, that wouldn't be fair use,
and it wouldn't fall under the copyright limitations. (Fair use is
defined by case law and, in effect, by a booklet available from various
Federal offices. My interpretations are based on case law dealing with
unsolicited mail.)

As for the implied warranty, in many states free products automatically
come without warranty. If Sean explicitly disclaims the warranty to the
extent permitted by applicable law, then the warranty is gone in most
states and effectively gone in all states.

Ross's phrase ``but I never agreed to this'' brings up contracts of
adhesion. This invalidates most shrink-wrap licenses but doesn't affect
copyrights at all.

> It's a copyright granting limited redistribution, not a license.

Correct. 

---Dan