Scott Moore wrote:
> I'll be putting this and other programs online. I don't have a decision
yet
> on the BSI suite, the authors have not returned my email. Again, the
recommendation
> is that you scan this yourself.
>
I guess I'll put the final nail in this. I have been reading through the
PUG letters
carefully of late, and it seems clear that although the test was published
there,
that the authors didn't consider that to be a release of their copyright
in any way.
Several times later the authors claim copyright on the work, and list a
distribution
price. Aside from the first printing, there are no further published
examples.
My putting the PUG letters online is a calculated risk. I have the
author's
(Andy Mickel), but of course it would be impractical to contact every
author of every
letter that was send into the PUG to be published. My take on it is that
everyone
who sent in letters or material to be published understood that they were
giving
up rights to it, and the holder of those "given up rights" gave the
permission to
publish to me.
Now I still believe that the Pascal test suite, as published (but not as
later
modified!) bears that same release of rights, since no copyright was
claimed for
it at the time it was published. Mr. Mickel has also expressed that
belief.
However, there are many places in programming where intents are honored as
well
as laws. For example, many open source authors restrict their works from
for-profit
applications, which some have said does not fit the legal definition of
copyright
(it goes to the issue of if you can allow copying at will but still
restrict use).
Regardless of the law, I, and many others I am sure, honor the authors
wishes
in such matters.
In addition, the current copyright holders of the suite, the BSI or
British
Standards Institute, clearly consider the material to be copyrighted and
restricted,
and just as clearly intend on keeping it for monetary reasons.
So until I hear different from the authors, I consider it against their
wishes
to distribute the material as published. I distribute the scans, which I
maintain
is proper, but to extract, correct and distribute the test suite in
executable
form,and to separate out the program by itself in that way, clearly
crosses over
into distribution of the material.
I have also felt free to use the test suite as published to verify IP
Pascal,
which is a usage of the material. Because the authors clearly ask for
re****ts
on the usage of the suite, without (apparently) requiring that it be
obtained
in paid binary from them, I believe this is proper. For example, even
without
scanning and character recognition technology, I could have typed the
material
in and executed it. Note that my having typed it in would still not have
given
me license to distribute it, just as a program appearing in an article can
be clearly copyrighted, but not disallow my typing in and executing that.
The bottom line is that I take copyright seriously, and I don't intend to
cross
the line, or even get overly close to the line on my web site.
Scott A. Moore
|
