On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 04:52:29PM +0100, Sven Panne wrote:
Ross Paterson wrote:
That is a delicate way of putting it. It appears that you've used almost all of his text.
... as a basis. And that's exactly what should be expected for a library binding: Either you follow the initial specs exactly or you don't really do a binding.
It would still be a binding without his text -- though not as convenient because people would have to use both his document and a description of how the Haskell binding related to it.
Even though no money is involved, calling this fair use and ignoring his notice is quite a stretch.
Well, the amount of work used is of course an issue, but not *the* issue, see e.g.:
http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/copypol2.htm#test
I use Mark's published (see 2.) work in a non-profit way (1.), but not to a small amount (3.). But there is no market for the GLUT docs and I neither compete with Mark's work nor do I take away royalties from him (4.). So this *is* a fair use IMO, but IANAL...
So you're claiming that any non-profit use of a non-profit publication is fair use, any thus any restrictions imposed by the author are void (except for giving them credit, I guess). I'm pretty sure that's incorrect (apart from the importance of the scale of use, you're also forgetting that fair use is limited to certain kinds of purpose), but then we're not lawyers, and you're talking about US copyright law to boot. I just believe that if an author gives us something, s/he should have some control over how their work is used. I'd prefer to receive it with fewer conditions, but that is their decision. It's a fair bargain. A world run your way would be the poorer, with authors less likely to produce non-profit publications.
And to restate: I do not "simply ignore" Mark's notice, he ignores any attempt of communication on this issue.
I did not say "simply ignore" -- I said "ignore", which was true. But his lack of cooperation does not affect anything.