Last post Dec 09, 2005 11:03 AM by RLyda
Dec 08, 2005 10:29 AM|RLyda|LINK
Anyone have thoughts on this verbage in the latest docs:
Complying with all applicable copyright laws is the responsibility of the user. Without limiting the rights under copyright, no part of this document may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval
system, or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise), or for any purpose, without the express written permission of Perpetual Motion Interactive Systems, Inc.
I know that I'm being nitpicky here, but....some legal snits will care about this stuff... The way I read this, we cannot posess these new documents--surely not what is intended! If we cannot transmit these docs from DNN through the mirrors and to our community, store
them on our hard disks and then call them back up for review....well what's the point in posting them? And why have mirrors if redistribution is not allowed--let's put all the download demands directly on the mothership? Cannot I download once and then redistribute
to my development team? And what about using source management tools, are they forbidden? (Yes, I know that there is a BSD statement on the DNN Downloads page....but not the mirrors, nor in the files themselves....since the verbage in the docs refers vaguely
to any outside "express written permission" what happens when the DNN Downloads page changes?)
This does not read as what I think is the intended "you cannot take excerpts from this content and use it in your own works beyond the reasonable limits of fair use and copyright law....you may not claim this content as your own, and proper attirbution is
Dec 08, 2005 10:35 AM|ErikVB|LINK
one might argue though that offering a download link to documents is an expressly written permission [:S]
thank God i'm not a laywer...
Dec 08, 2005 10:37 AM|jbrinkman|LINK
I think the effort is to make sure that "public" distribution occurs through DotNetNuke. There are many reasons for this including the fact that sponsors are very interested in the size of the "active" community. One way we measure this is through downloads
of software and documentation.
I agree that the language is overly restrictive/ambiguous and we will review the language to make sure it reflects our true intentions.
Dec 08, 2005 10:56 AM|RLyda|LINK
Dec 08, 2005 11:49 AM|cniknet|LINK
Thankfully, I am not a lawyer either, but to me the language is pretty standard and is fairly clear. The important thing to note is that it says "no part of this document," and not just "this document." This clearly allows for electronic distribution/downloads
etc., and fair use, but also clearly limits cut and paste without permission.
Dec 08, 2005 12:20 PM|RLyda|LINK
Dec 08, 2005 02:46 PM|chitine|LINK
Ever seen the Simpsons episode where Homer goes to the candy convention and steals the "gummi Venus de Milo," which he later pulls off the babysitter's rear-end? Then he has to go on an interview show to defend himself... the producers weave together different
pieces of the interview so in it Homer's drooling and saying "Somebody had to take the babysitter home. Then I noticed she was sitting on (splice) her sweet (splice) can.. (splice) -- o I grab her -- (splice) sweet can.. (splice) Oh, just thinking about
(splice) her (splice) can.. (splice) I just wish I had her -- (splice) sweet (splice) sweet (splice) s-s-sweet (splice) can.."
Ah, the upside to cut-and-pasting just the pieces you want!
Dec 09, 2005 11:03 AM|RLyda|LINK
While that was a funny episode... Most educational systems and scientific advances are largely based upon cut & paste--the whole reason Fair Use doctrine exists in otherwise conservative Copyright laws!
Try this in History class:
If you forbid all copy & paste, then you forbid all doctors in the world (medical, research scientists, computer engineers, etc...)! Even in the Dark Ages, monks were COPYING the works of others--preserving the fundamental heritage of the cultures we enjoy
today... (I doubt any of us would want to live in a world with less than what little was available in the Dark Ages.)
All that said, Copyright & Fair Use exist in a delicate balance. I definitely think the Core Team has a natural right to protect their hard work. My original points were that: 1) I don't think the verbage matches the intent; and 2) The entire thing might
be struct down by a court as conflicting with higher law--leaving the Core Team with less coverage than even their more limited intentions may be...