libera/#sicl - IRC Chatlog
Search
1:08:01
nij-
Right. But if that's the case, probably cloning and redistributing are also illegal? That include CLCS, novaspec, and all copies on github.
1:09:21
paulapatience
We're not arguing for not using it, just the idea that modifying it makes it more ok to use it than it currently is.
1:09:50
paulapatience
Copyright is useful only insofar as the copyright holder does something about it
7:48:38
nij-
bike Apparently, this is a talk note given by Kent Pitman http://nhplace.com/kent/Papers/cl-untold-story.html
7:50:23
nij-
And Kent Pitman's stance was (paraphrased) "No, we can't give you (ANSI) the copyright. It's the work of many people. And X3J13 doesn't "own" it.""
7:51:00
nij-
At the end the compromise seems to be that Kent telling ANSI that if they put a page of copyright claim, no one will ever tell.
7:51:37
nij-
Again, this is only Kent's word. But if this is true, I don't think ansi can lawfully claim that they own dpANS.
7:53:13
nij-
If one parsed and represented dpANS correctly, that itself is a merit and may be enough to claim "novelty", granting the possibility to claim copyleft.
7:53:44
nij-
Legally and realistically speaking, that sounds pretty fine for me. (Ofc Im no law person.)
10:19:38
paulapatience
There is no question that modifying dpANS3 would result in a copyrightable derived work
10:20:40
paulapatience
Just as there's no question that it would be a derived work, which as you pointed out, is probably not an issue.
10:22:03
paulapatience
However, Kent's words would not prevent ANSI from potentially filing a lawsuit, indeed people can file lawsuits for whatever reason (at least in the USA I think)
10:45:14
splittist
If all the folks who had put time and effort into automatically parsing dpANS had just typed out different bits, we'd have a completely rewritten copy by now.