From DMV@salford-software.com Mon Aug 4 09:25:19 1997 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net (relay-7.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.7]) by dkuug.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA09624 for ; Mon, 4 Aug 1997 09:25:18 +0200 Received: from salfsoft.demon.co.uk ([158.152.93.93]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa0622804; 4 Aug 97 8:20 BST From: David Vallance Organisation: Salford Software Ltd To: Walt Brainerd , SC22WG5@dkuug.dk, Loren Meissner Date: Fri, 1 Aug 1997 18:13:02 +0000 Message-ID: <15321.DMV@salford-software.com> Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.1435) RE: F77 "standard" Reply-To: DMV@salford-software.com Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a) via wpkGate v2.01 I think I would not "get a lawyer" until you see the reds of their eyes. My instincts tell me that this is a starting point for a long and expensive wrangle. (Remember the old acorn about the lawyer who moved to a town and did no business until his friend, also a lawyer, set up in practice across the street ...). Why not just sit it out and see what happens? Masterly inactivity may be an option. Doesn't the US principle of freedom of information have relevance to the F77 standard especially as it is obsolete? Dave > Date: Thu, 31 Jul 97 22:53:40 UT > From: "Loren Meissner" > To: "Walt Brainerd" , SC22WG5@dkuug.dk > Subject: (SC22WG5.1435) RE: F77 "standard" > Walt: Here are a few quotes from Chicago Manual of Style, 14th edition (1993). > = > Paragraph 4.2: "[In the US since 1 January 1978,] whenever a book or article, > poem or lecture, database or drama comes into the world in a tangible form, it > is automatically covered by copyright. This is true regardless of whether the > work is ever published. Whoever is the _author_ (a term not synonymous with > _creator_ ...) controls that copyright, at the outset, and automatically > possesses certain rights in the work." > = > Paragraph 4.24: "... we [USA] now operate simultaneously under three different > doctrines: (1) for works first published on or after 1 March 1989 [the date > the Berne convention became effective in the US], no copyright notice is > required; (2) for works first published between 1 January 1978 and 28 February > 1989, copyright notice must have been used on all copies published prior to 1 > March 1989, with the proviso that certain steps could be taken, Orpheus-like, > to redeem deficient notice (see 4.28); and (3) for works first published prior > to 1 January 1978, the copyright was almost certainly forfeited if the notice > was not affixed to all copies; few excuses were or are available." > = > The referenced paragraph 4.28: "Under pre-1978 law, no mechanism was available > to cure the effects of defective notice: copyright was forfeited, and that was > that, unless the omission of notice was accidental and occurred in a very > small number of copies. For publication occurring between 1 January 1978 and 1 > March 1989, a more lenient regime prevailed. A mistake in the owner's name, or > a mistake by no more than a year in the date element of the notice, was > largely excused. Any more serious mistake was treated as an omission of > notice. Any omission of one or more of the necessary three elements [copyright > symbol, year of publication, and name of copyright owner] would be excused if > the omission was from a "relatively small" number of copies. If more extensive > omission occurred, the copyright owner could still save the copyright from > forfeiture by registering it ... within five years after the defective > publication and making a "reasonable effort" to add the notice to all copies > distributed to the public after the omission was discovered." > = > In my opinion, your mistake was requesting permission in the first place. What > do they mean by "If it is determined that > copyrighted material is > incorrectly posted on that website, proper steps > will be taken to have it > deleted" ??? How are they going to delete material from your website? I have > not yet heard on what grounds the Standards bureaucracy claims to be the > author. I think the only possibility of them owning anything is _after_ they > require the actual authors to assign rights to them (and some of us would > sooner resign). I think, as I always have, that they are bluffing. For now, I > think you should ignore them and let them sue. (Anyway, it's your neck, not > mine. Get a lawyer.) > = > As I noted in Fortran Forum, March 1995, something awfully close to Fortran 90 > was published in Fortran Forum in May 1989: "Fortran 90 (then called Fortran > 8X) was officially distributed for public review in May 1989, but essentially > similar drafts were widely available before 1 March. If Fortran 90 was "first > published" prior to 1 March 1989, it is obviously in the public domain (in the > US) because no copyright notice appears and none of the other required > protective steps were ever taken. If it was "first published" on 1 March 1989 > or later, it belongs to the authors, who are the technical committee members > or their employers. In either case, there would seem to be no basis for any > claim of copyright ownership by the standards establishment." > = > Loren P. Meissner > > > -- David M Vallance Managing Director Salford Software Ltd Tel: +44 (0) 161 834 2454 Adelphi House Fax: +44 (0) 161 834 2148 Adelphi Street WWW: http://www.salford.ac.uk/ssl/ss.html Salford, M3 6EN UK