🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <8704100648.AA08480@ingres.Berkeley.EDU> hatcher@INGRES.BERKELEY.EDU (Doug Merritt) writes:
>The scare about stargate redistribution prohibitions has had an unfortunate
>side effect...a lot of people are now putting needlessly restrictive
>copyright notices on all their postings. Often the wording is so restrictive
>that, for instance, a magazine, journal, book or other publication would
>not be able to quote the material. I doubt that this is intended, so I
>suggest you think about making sure that general use is allowed. Why not?
>Look at Byte's listings of interesting BIX material; if all those people
>put restrictive copyright notices in there, the only effect would be that
>their postings would reach a smaller audience. This benefits no one.

All of the notices I've seen have said only `you may redistribute this
posting only if your recipients can', or `redistribution rights granted
recursively only.'  BYTE could publish such postings.  The only thing is
that I could run off 100,000 copies of the postings and spread them
around without asking BYTE for permission.

This doesn't seem too restrictive.
--
	-Colin Plumb (watmath!watnot!ccplumb)

Silly quote:
Nobody could fill his socks.

In article <8704100648.AA08480@ingres.Berkeley.EDU>, hatcher@INGRES.BERKELEY.EDU (Doug Merritt) writes:
> Maybe some experienced person out there could suggest a nice generic
> notice that everybody could use that was not overly restrictive.
> 	Doug Merritt       ucbvax!ingres!hatcher

You might wish to check out the copyright notice used by ACM publications
or by BYTE. The trick is to modify them appropriately. The ACM notice is
particularly good in that it prohibits retransmission for profit.

Jonathan S. Shapiro