In the last exciting episode, Moop <m...@moop.moop> wrote:
> Is it?
What do you think "Onlisp" is?
If you're thinking of Paul Graham's book, _On Lisp_, then the answer is "of course not."
Paul Graham holds copyright, and unlike the average author, he is quite wealthy and can afford to pay lawyers to go after someone that might infringe on it. -- If this was helpful, <http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=cbbrowne> rate me http://cbbrowne.com/info/lsf.html Horribly wedging my very own personal machine gives me a comfortable, familiar, Lisp-machine feeling (like an old shoe), laced with that racy hint of raw, cold-boot power.
To put something in the public domain requires a notice not dissimilar to a copyright notice. The only other way to get to the public domain is to copyright the document (which, incidentally, is the default condition of a document having no notice--that is, copyright "attaches" when a work is "fixed in a medium" -- it does not require registration or notice) and then wait MANY years for the document to fall out of copyright.
The way to be sure about a particular document would be to contact its author.
> To put something in the public domain requires a notice not dissimilar > to a copyright notice. The only other way to get to the public domain > is to copyright the document (which, incidentally, is the default > condition of a document having no notice--that is, copyright > "attaches" when a work is "fixed in a medium" -- it does not require > registration or notice) and then wait MANY years for the document to > fall out of copyright.
> The way to be sure about a particular document would be to contact its > author.
So then Lytha Ayth who created an Onlisp and SICP texinfo conversion
shouldn't have released them publicly. He could be in deep doo-doo too.
So then the question is: What if I write a program that translates LaTeX to HTML and happens to work PERFECTLY for CLtL (for some bizaar reason) and provide a README that says if you want to convert CLtL then do blah blah blah. Would that be okay?
Or what about a diff? Could that be considered a derivative work? Could a texinfo conversion be considered a derivative work?
What about a big hairy program that basically is just an elaborate diff embedded in the form of a program. If I just distribute this program then would it be okay?
I could concievably write a program that inserts texinfo code I've written (copyright Shawn Betts) and only refers to text in CLtL as character ranges in the document (replace the text from character 34555 to 34600 with "@c foo bar baz"). That should get around distributing copyrighted material.
What is with this? Its just plain rude and disrespectful to even try to just get around things like this. Ask Paul Graham directly, if you cannot get him by email, phone him or snail-mail him. Is this so hard to understand? Is it so hard for a little respect to creep into people's lives?
Christopher Browne <cbbro...@acm.org> writes: > In the last exciting episode, Moop <m...@moop.moop> wrote: > > Is it?
> What do you think "Onlisp" is?
> If you're thinking of Paul Graham's book, _On Lisp_, then the answer > is "of course not."
> Paul Graham holds copyright, and unlike the average author, he is > quite wealthy and can afford to pay lawyers to go after someone that > might infringe on it.
Any work that is properly registered prior to the infringement is entitled to both statutory damages AND recovery of lawyer's fees, so the cost of the lawyers is usually irrelevant. I'm told that it's not hard to find someone who will prosecute these things on contingency since the law specifically asserts that fees are recoverable. So assuming that you can only infringe on authors with not too much money is a bad plan.
I'd guess that formally published works are usually properly registered.
Shawn Betts <sabe...@remove.this.part.sfu.ca> writes: > So then the question is: What if I write a program that translates > LaTeX to HTML and happens to work PERFECTLY for CLtL (for some bizaar > reason) and provide a README that says if you want to convert CLtL > then do blah blah blah. Would that be okay?
In general, Get a lawyer to be sure.
I don't know what the legal status of CLTL is nor why a LaTeX source would be available to you. Just because one is available does not mean permission is given to make other uses of it; then again, it hints that there is a notice somewhere explaining what uses are allowed and not.
My understanding of copyright law says that making a translation of a LaTeX document to HTML is "creating a derivative work" and requires permission. Whether such permission has been given is not something I know. I just wouldn't personally be distributing derivative works without having verified this one way or another if I were you.
If you distribute a program whose purpose is to construct such a translation, you might or might not be infringing. It might depend on how easy/automatic you make it and how much intervention by someone else is involved. But if permission is not given for you to do such conversion, and if you're not culpable, you might be inviting others to infringe, not realizing they should not be running your program.
> Or what about a diff?
Chuckle. CLTL2 is already a diff. Mostly.
> Could that be considered a derivative work?
Yes, but I don't know that it would.
FWIW, I believe there was a court case when someone broadcast info in realtime saying when commercials were starting on TV so that you could subscribe to the broadcast and cut out commercials. My recollection is that the court held that the decision about where the commercial breaks were was part of the copyrighted form of the broadcast. Further, the court had at one time upheld (not sure if it's been since overturned, since it seems to me to have anticompetitive effects) West Law's claim that page and line breaks are part of its copyright on published legal cases, which means that when you make or interpret legal citations in some venues, you have to actually use West's versions of court cases, or else you won't get the page and line information right. No one else is allowed to use those same breaks...
> Could a texinfo conversion be considered a derivative work?
Yes, and it probably would. I don't see much ambiguity there. But what do I know. I'm only a "language lawyer". ;)
> What about a big hairy program that basically is just an elaborate > diff embedded in the form of a program. If I just distribute this > program then would it be okay?
Ask your lawyer.
> I could concievably write a program that inserts texinfo code I've > written (copyright Shawn Betts) and only refers to text in CLtL as > character ranges in the document (replace the text from character > 34555 to 34600 with "@c foo bar baz"). That should get around > distributing copyrighted material.
This knowledge would appear to be copyrighted in the same sense as the West Law case.
> Thoughts?
Don't try to be clever. Contact the author.
Especially don't publish your scheming about how to get around reasonable copyright restrictions since it allows anyone to cite your public posting as evidence of your motives.
> Any work that is properly registered prior to the infringement is entitled > to both statutory damages AND recovery of lawyer's fees, so the cost of the > lawyers is usually irrelevant. I'm told that it's not hard to find someone > who will prosecute these things on contingency since the law specifically > asserts that fees are recoverable. So assuming that you can only infringe > on authors with not too much money is a bad plan.
> I'd guess that formally published works are usually properly registered.
I was under the impression that with 1976 copyright law, you didn't have to register anything. As a creator of a work, you would implicitly hold copyright until fifty years after your death.
Mind you, I haven't taken the time to read all of Title 17.
Copyright law questions might want to be asked elsewhere. I imagine that when it comes to works that are available on the Internet, things get really complex as geopolitical boundries are crossed.
-- One Editor to rule them all. One Editor to find them, One Editor to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.
Shawn Betts <sabe...@remove.this.part.sfu.ca> writes: > So then the question is: What if I write a program that translates > LaTeX to HTML and happens to work PERFECTLY for CLtL (for some bizaar > reason) and provide a README that says if you want to convert CLtL > then do blah blah blah. Would that be okay?
Read the ditribution license of the original document to find out what you are allowed to do with it. If unclear, contact the author.
Transforming from LaTeX to HTML is simply transforming the format. It is not a dirived work. It is the work. The same applies to your other schemes.
-- One Editor to rule them all. One Editor to find them, One Editor to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.
Almost certainly not. My copy is (c) 1994 by Prentice-Hall. This copyright has been transferred to Paul Graham, according to his web site, and he has chosen to make a computer-readable copy available for free, but I can't find any clear indication that he has allowed it to pass into the public domain.
Why don't you write an e-mail to Paul, and ask him for permission to do whatever it is you wish to do?
In article <e86bd0ec.0307081749.24c48...@posting.google.com>, Joseph Oswald wrote: > Why don't you write an e-mail to Paul, and ask him for permission to > do whatever it is you wish to do?
Paul replied rapidly and graciously when I sent him e-mail asking permission to create a derivative work (a Debian package) of OnLisp and to distribute that derivation.
David Steuber <david.steu...@verizon.net> writes: > Kent M Pitman <pit...@world.std.com> writes:
> > Any work that is properly registered prior to the infringement is entitled > > to both statutory damages AND recovery of lawyer's fees, so the cost of the > > lawyers is usually irrelevant. I'm told that it's not hard to find someone > > who will prosecute these things on contingency since the law specifically > > asserts that fees are recoverable. So assuming that you can only infringe > > on authors with not too much money is a bad plan.
> > I'd guess that formally published works are usually properly registered.
> I was under the impression that with 1976 copyright law, you didn't > have to register anything. As a creator of a work, you would > implicitly hold copyright until fifty years after your death.
If you are on file with the copyright office, you can claim statutory damages. That is, there is a statute-defined amount (which is large) that you can simply claim without showing actual damages. You can also recover lawyer's fees. If you are not on file with the copyright office, you still have a copyright but you may only be able to get a cease and desist order + actual damages and you probably won't get lawyer's fees. Or so I understand.
> Mind you, I haven't taken the time to read all of Title 17.
Heh. It's very approachable, btw. Compared to many topics.
I also recommend the Gilbert series of audio study tapes for law school final exams. I found the tapes on Copyright and Con
