On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote: >On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 01:00:07PM -0700, John Galt wrote: >> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Jeffry Smith wrote: >> >> >John Galt said: >> >> On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Sam TH wrote: >> >> >This statement of freely available, however, also conflicts with the >> >> >examples given for "freely availableness", such as usenet. Nothing >> >> >about a usenet posting implies free redistibutability. In fact, >> >> >Usenet postings are all copyrighted, and unless specific other license >> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> >> Case law? Cite? >> >> >> > >> >Since, according to Copyright Law, all writings are copyrighted >> >unless explicitly stated otherwise, yes, Usenet postings are >> >copyrighted. >> >> Said copyright law was made by the Berne Convention, which postdates this >> license. In fact the previous standard was "PD unless stated" (that's >> actually a stretch, the real law involved was that no rights were reserved >> unless specifically stated, hence the "all rights reserved" language of >> many copyright notices). > >And the fact that the AL was written prior to the current copyright >law is relevant how? If A new law appears, which changes the meaning >of something in a license, that certainly changes the DFSG freeness of >the license. Or do you think that licenses are interpreted under the >law as it was when they were written? > >Second, Perl was released in the mid-80s. The current copyright law >is ten years older than that. I don't know exactly when the AL was >written, but this would suggest that it postdates the Copyright Act of >1976.
The "copyright by definition" is codified in Berne and the DMCA. Think 1990 rather than 1970... > sam th > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.abisource.com/~sam/ > GnuPG Key: > http://www.abisource.com/~sam/key > -- Galt's sci-fi paradox: Stormtroopers versus Redshirts to the death. Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
