[ntp:questions] poll interval - RFC compliance question

John Ackermann N8UR jra at febo.com
Sun Jun 15 13:04:58 UTC 2008


You're right, Dave, I didn't read the original license language -- I
should have.  I personally don't see any real issues with the language
quoted below, as it grants a license to copy, distribute, and modify,
which are the three rights that make the most sense in a software
context, as well as "use".

However, on a point of extreme pedantry, the copyright notice itself is
technically flawed.  You're OK here because you added some redundancy,
but under US law a copyright notice must either fully spell out the word
Copyright, abbreviate it as "Copr.", or use the c-in-a-circle symbol --
 the "(c)" construct isn't a valid substitute.

(While under US law, any of the three forms suffice, if you include the
real c-in-a-circle, it provides additional protection under one
international treaty, the Universal Copyright Convention.)

I'm not aware of any cases on point, but because the relevant laws and
treaties specifically require the c-in-circle symbol, there is a broad
consensus that c-in-parentheses does *not* suffice in a copyright
notice, and that adding it does no good at all.

The US Copyright office circular on copyright notices is at
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.html#form

Sorry for that diversion, and as noted your use of the full word
"Copyright" solves the problem -- but the use of "(c)" is so widespread
that I wanted to use this opportunity to denounce it.

John
----

David L. Mills said the following on 06/15/2008 12:05 AM:
> John,
> 
> I can tell you haven't read the statement. Please do. Perhaps a lawyer 
> would have phrased it differently and maybe modern times are different 
> than mellow old MIT days, but I am loath to change it on advice, as this 
> might compromise prior use and interpretation of the statement.
> 
> Dave
> 
> ***********************************************************************
> *                                                                     *
> * Copyright (c) David L. Mills 1992-2008                              *
> *                                                                     *
> * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and   *
> * its documentation for any purpose with or without fee is hereby     *
> * granted, provided that the above copyright notice appears in all    *
> * copies and that both the copyright notice and this permission       *
> * notice appear in supporting documentation, and that the name        *
> * University of Delaware not be used in advertising or publicity      *
> * pertaining to distribution of the software without specific,        *
> * written prior permission. The University of Delaware makes no       *
> * representations about the suitability this software for any         *
> * purpose. It is provided "as is" without express or implied 
>          *
> * warranty.                                                           *
> *                                                                     *
> ***********************************************************************John 
> Ackermann N8UR wrote:
> 
>> David Woolley said the following on 06/14/2008 04:34 PM:
>>
>>
>>> To the extent that copyright agreements are optional, their purpose is 
>>> normally to give you a copy only on the condition that you do not 
>>> exercise some of the rights that you would have if given the copy 
>>> without making the agreement.
>>>
>>> I suspect Open BSD's problem is that the statement of permission doesn't 
>>> actually give all the rights that are restricted by copyright.  In 
>>> particular, if it says "use", that has a technical meaning that doesn't 
>>> include copying to give to others.
>>
>> Good point, David.  The US copyright law lists five exclusive rights
>> that the copyright holder possesses.  "Use" isn't one of them, and that
>> does make software copyright issues more interesting.  The five rights
>> are the right to: copy, create derivative works, distribute, perform
>> publicly (applies only to certain types of works), and to display
>> publicly (also applies only to certain types of works).
>>
>> The reason that "use" normally works in the software context is that to
>> make software function you almost always need to copy it (for example,
>> from hard disk to RAM).  In some situations, "use" would also trigger
>> the display right.  But it's also possible to conceive of a computing
>> device with nonvolatile memory such that there is no copying involved in
>> running the the software.  So, a right to "use" is inherently ambiguous
>> from a copyright perspective.
>>
>> I believe (pretty strongly) that "use" would not normally be interpreted
>> to include the right to distribute copies to third parties.  However,
>> that right could be implied by the circumstances (if I publish my
>> software on a web site and encourage downloads with no restrictions, it
>> might well be that I've granted an implied license to those who download
>> to further distribute.
>>
>> By the way -- relying on copyright notices drafted in the early '80s
>> isn't necessarily a good idea.  At least in the US, there was still
>> significant debate on whether software could even be copyrighted up
>> until 1983, when Apple v. Franklin pretty much laid that to rest.
>> Rights notices of the time were experimental, to say the least...
>>
>> John
> 
> _______________________________________________
> questions mailing list
> questions at lists.ntp.org
> https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
> 
> 




More information about the questions mailing list