[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] Agreement to license
- To: musicdenotation@x
- Subject: Re: [Scheme-reports] Agreement to license
- From: Jonathan Rees <jar@x>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 11:25:02 -0400
- Cc: Scheme Specification team <scheme-reports@x>
- In-reply-to: <C8FEC87A-B967-4E59-9DA2-7D3C4EE45B6A@gmail.com>
- References: <C8FEC87A-B967-4E59-9DA2-7D3C4EE45B6A@gmail.com>
On Jun 30, 2014, at 7:46 AM, musicdenotation@x wrote:
> Where are the agreements to license the copyright of the Scheme reports located?
The agreements were probably made starting in the early 1980s. There was certainly at least one conversation in which the behavior of participants would have legally constituted a copyright license. The agreements could have been made verbally or even nonverbally, without documentary evidence; that doesn't mean they weren't agreements. The lack of such evidence could in theory be exploited by an unscrupulous rightsholder. To prevail in court they would need to demonstrate that (a) they are a rightsholder and (b) the copying or performance was infringing on their copyright i.e. not licensed by them. Both (a) and (b) are long shots, (a) because we have poor records of authorship until recently and (b) because they'd have to explain why they contributed to a document that clearly says that its authors license copyright. In a civil suit I think they would also have to show personal harm. Consider the likelihood of the conjunction of all this relative to, say, being hit by a meteor.
The situation is how it is; there's nothing anyone can do about it. Why not give it a rest? If you want to talk about a different document, that's a different matter, and you can take up the matter with its authors. Or you can write your own document and do as you like.
> Scheme-reports mailing list