Google Mail Calendar Documents Reader Web more »
Recently Visited Groups | Help | Sign in
Google Groups Home
Message from discussion Is Onlisp public domain?
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Follow-up To:
Add Cc | Add Follow-up to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers that you hear
 
Kent M Pitman  
View profile   Translate to Translated (View Original)
 More options 9 July 2003, 22:03
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
From: Kent M Pitman <pit...@world.std.com>
Date: 09 Jul 2003 17:02:17 -0400
Local: Wed 9 July 2003 22:02
Subject: Re: Is Onlisp public domain?

Lars Brinkhoff <lars.s...@nocrew.org> writes:
> How about the Common Lisp dpANS documents?  I was under the impression
> that they were released under public domainish terms, but now that I
> look, I can't find any copyright notice.

You're right that there isn't a proper notice per se.  Documents do
exist (but are not on display publicly) that would show that the legal
intent was to have placed them into the public domain, even though we
botched the final execution of that.  A good intellectual property
lawyer would tell you that this means the legal status is messy, but
what that really means (I believe) is that those who paid for its
creation could (hypothetically) have grounds to make a claim that it
was encumbered in some way, that is, to assert that they have some
right of ownership.  But since all of those parties at one time or
another signed into this system of contracts identifying that the
intent was to make a public domain document, I don't personally think
they would succeed.  

Historically, the community has generally behaved as if they are
properly in the public domain, and I've never heard of any problem
resulting from that.  But then, I don't purport to be omniscient.

A lot of the law is about intimidation.  Who can intimidate who into
doing (or not doing) what.  In this case, there is probably no one
with any potential standing who has any serious motivation to want to
intimidate anyone, so I think you're ok on that score.

But then, I'm not a lawyer.  If you plan to make a decision that would
bring you into legal jeopardy (making or distributing a derivative work),
you really should consult a lawyer.


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.

Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2009 Google