Re: Permission for Research

[Nathan Sidwell <nathan at codesourcery dot com>]

Joe Buck wrote:

> Nathan Sidwell writes:
> > OTOH, asking the question in the first place sort demonstrates a lack of
> > understanding of open source, doesn't it?
Just for the record, you misquote me. I did not say this, Steven W. Orr
<steveo@world.std.com> did (in a followup to me). Wouldn't want
steve's copyright misattributed now would we :-)

[steven said]
> > I mean, if you have to ask permission, it's not open.
> 
> If in doubt, asking permission is good manners, and if you want to
> interview people it's hard to do so without their permission. :-)
Absolutely! (I don't think Yukuta was intending to interview, just to
analyze.)

Steve writes separately
> Just for arguiments sake, I thought we were taling on a *public* mailing
> list? Everything said here *can't* be copyrighted.
No, you misunderstand the Berne convention & the distinction between
'public' and 'public domain'. Copyright automatically lies with the writer.
They can assign the copyright to another party (which is why we all have to
have FSF assignments to contribute gcc code). Alternatively, the work
could be assigned to the 'public domain' (or be deemed to be in the 'public
domain'), which is when nobody has the copyright or monopoly of the work.
Emails to the lists aren't covered by an FSF assignment one might have,
so the copyright resides with the writer.
[IIR, copyright ceases 50 years after the death of the author, except
for photos which it recently changed to be 10? years after the photo
was taken. after that time the work is in the public domain.]

Anyway, this is now off topic, the conlusion for Yutaka Yamauchi appears
to be nobody objects, and we'd like to know what you find.

nathan

-- 
Dr Nathan Sidwell   ::   http://www.codesourcery.com   ::   CodeSourcery LLC
         'But that's a lie.' - 'Yes it is. What's your point?'
nathan@codesourcery.com : http://www.cs.bris.ac.uk/~nathan/ : nathan@acm.org