Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I mentioned this thread to my solicitor earlier, just out of pure
> interest, and he was on the opinion that as "(c)" or "(C)" are the most
> common, not to mention closest, representation of the symbol in computer
> source code that any sane judge
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
> And, despite what you've been arguing against,
>
> * Copyright (c) 2003 Sample Author
I have not been arguing against this. Adding extra stuff is fine,
provided it doesn't materially impede clarity, and this of course
doesn't impede clarity.
I'm a
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "(c)" is the closest you can get to circle-C in one-dimensional ASCII
> text. It's a pretty close reproduction of the symbol.
Except given that you *can* say "Copyright" exactly, and given that
they amended the statute just to provide for things that
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> They are generally interpreted as having different implications;
> "must" is a far stronger term.
Not in American law.
On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 16:04, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 03:43:19PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > [...] I still think it would be hard for the defendant to
> > convince a court that he was ignorant of the *de facto* convention
> > that people put "(c)" in computer program
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 03:43:19PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> [...] I still think it would be hard for the defendant to
> convince a court that he was ignorant of the *de facto* convention
> that people put "(c)" in computer programs to assert their copyright.
Actually, the convention is "Cop
Scripsit Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Even if I'm right, "fairly close" does not necessarily mean "identical",
> and, frankly, I think the whole thing is getting a bit silly. Having (c) in
> there might, or might not, be considered "circle in a C" if you have only
> ASCII to work with, by some
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 09:26:32PM +0200, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
> > > If the law says something shall consist of certain things, then
> > > there is no reason to assume that something else may also
> > > qualify. Only the notice as given in this section allows you
> > > to get the effec
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 07:55:09PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 06:11:08PM +0200, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
> >
> > I believe that SHALL and MUST are equivalent in meaning in English.
> > But technically you're right, it doesn't say "must".
>
> They are generall
Hi,
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 06:11:08PM +0200, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
> > If a notice appears on the copies, it shall consist of the
> > following three elements:
> >
> > I believe that SHALL and MUST are equivalent in meaning in English.
> > But technical
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 06:11:08PM +0200, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 10:38:10AM +0200, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
> > > That says that you MAY include a coypright notice as defined in
> > > section 401(b). If you choose to do so, th
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 10:38:10AM +0200, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
> > That says that you MAY include a coypright notice as defined in
> > section 401(b). If you choose to do so, then it MUST be
>
>
>
> You're doing it too. I see no "MUST" anywhere in section 40
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 10:38:10AM +0200, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > Actually the real law says "may" and "shall". The "must" part is
> > another invention of the US Copyright Office.
> >
> > (Title 17, Chapter 4, Section 401 (a) and (b))
>
> That says that you
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> This is a plausible argument. You should know by now that plausible
>> arguments do not form a basis in law; rather, it is merely the
>> position put forth by the counsel for the defence. Kindly ref
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Actually the real law says "may" and "shall". The "must" part is
> another invention of the US Copyright Office.
>
> (Title 17, Chapter 4, Section 401 (a) and (b))
That says that you MAY include a coypright notice as defined in
section 401(b). If you choose to do so, then
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 12:16:10AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This is a plausible argument. You should know by now that plausible
> > arguments do not form a basis in law; rather, it is merely the
> > position put forth by the counsel for
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is a plausible argument. You should know by now that plausible
> arguments do not form a basis in law; rather, it is merely the
> position put forth by the counsel for the defence. Kindly refrain from
> treating it as anything else.
Oh, puhleez.
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 05:42:20PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > So in brief, there is no basis in law for the statement that "(c) is
> > not valid as a notice of copyright".
>
> Sure there is. The law says that the following are the only
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So in brief, there is no basis in law for the statement that "(c) is
> not valid as a notice of copyright".
Sure there is. The law says that the following are the only valid
things:
C in a circle
The word "Copyright".
The abbreviation "Copr."
The l
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 04:12:28PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> So more to the point: there are many many references which say
> "c-in-parens doesn't count"
None of which are legally significant.
> there is a reference which says what does
> count, and it doesn't include c-in-parens, and
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > That's a nonofficial source. But a brief web search will show you
> > that the same thing is repeated a gillion times.
>
> Everything I've read so far has claimed that (c) has no force of law,
> wher
[NB: I'm subscribed... don't need to be CC'ed.]
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> In general, such claims don't work, because of the whole point of the
> statement: to have a single, unambiguous, bright-line test for what
> is a valid copyright notice, so that no interpretation, g
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> That's a nonofficial source. But a brief web search will show you
> that the same thing is repeated a gillion times.
Everything I've read so far has claimed that (c) has no force of law,
whereas c-in-a-circle does. However, I'm unaware of a court
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 11:28:56AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > The "(c)" version does *not* count as a C-in-a-circle,
> > so it's just meaningless extra stuff.
>
> Precedent and jurisdiction, please.
A trivial web search brought up:
http:/
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 11:28:56AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> The "(c)" version does *not* count as a C-in-a-circle,
> so it's just meaningless extra stuff.
Precedent and jurisdiction, please.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `'
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian T. Sniffen) writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
>
> > Drew Scott Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> Is the an implied copyright notification (I.e. "code added by person")
> >> sufficient in the debian/copyright or is it necessary to say
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> Drew Scott Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Is the an implied copyright notification (I.e. "code added by person")
>> sufficient in the debian/copyright or is it necessary to say
>> explicitly say "year copyright person"?
>
> There is no s
Drew Scott Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is the an implied copyright notification (I.e. "code added by person")
> sufficient in the debian/copyright or is it necessary to say
> explicitly say "year copyright person"?
There is no such thing as "implied copyright".
But that doesn't reall
Is the an implied copyright notification (I.e. "code added by person")
sufficient in the debian/copyright or is it necessary to say
explicitly say "year copyright person"?
Upstream explicitly states "year copyright person".
Iirc, I read somewhere that (c) is not the same as the copyright simple
a
29 matches
Mail list logo
