How would this proposed data base, new list server, or whatever it may become, differ from the CBT tape?
Bill Fairchild Programmer Rocket Software 408 Chamberlain Park Lane * Franklin, TN 37069-2526 * USA t: +1.617.614.4503 * e: bfairch...@rocketsoftware.com * w: www.rocketsoftware.com -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of scott Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 7:53 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Correction to Carmine's Book Cost A thought - was to have Carmine join us, which would be nice, but we would expand on his good work. It too would avoid legal complications as well. On 10/29/2012 01:44 PM, Mike Schwab wrote: > Yes, emails are (implied) copyrighted when you make them available for > other computers to see (post on a web page or send an email, drafts or > password protected files excluded), even without an explicit copyright > notice. > > Reworking someone else's copyrighted work it becomes a jointly > authored work if you include them as the author and should had their > authorization (something like a wiki you acknowledge subsequent > authors have the right to modify the document). You should include a > reference to the original. > > Reworking someone else's work making it look like they were the sole > author is one form of a crime (similar to libel). > > Copying (and or reworking) someone else's work looking like it is your > sole work is another form of a crime (similar to theft). > > On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 12:14 PM, McKown, John > <john.mck...@healthmarkets.com> wrote: >> I don't think another email forum for the z is needed. We have IBM-MAIN, >> IBMTCP-L, MVS-OE, CICS-L, ASSEMBLER-LIST, Linux-390 and likely even more. >> IANAL, but I wonder what the copyright status is of the messages which are >> sent on a public email forum. I just don't see how anybody could assert a >> copyright claim on them (thinking about Lindy's response about one person >> who considers his knowledge to be his "property"). So maintaining an >> independent archive is likely legal (if not, Google is in trouble). I also >> wonder how much "editing" that one could get away with. What I was thinking >> of was perhaps a "raw archive" (perhaps indexed or threaded) and, from that, >> make an FAQ "wiki" like site which took the information, organized it, but >> include hyperlinks back to the "raw archive" message(s) from which the >> information was "cribbed". Might even have links to vendor documentation, if >> such is available. IBM very nicely has a good Web documentation site that I >> often reference in a reply so that other's can evaluate things for >> themselves. All that I've been able to find for CA are PDF documents, and >> you need to log into their support site to get access to them. So I doubt it >> would be legal to "webify" them so that you could give a hyperlink to a web >> page containing their information. Other vendors seem to be like CA. They >> don't seem to want their documentation to be easily accessed via the Web in >> an "unfettered" manner. Oh, wait, Dovetail Technologies "man" pages for >> their zero-cost software is easily gotten to via "unfettered access" and >> hyperlinks. >> >> -- >> John McKown ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
