Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #13400

Re: Can draft standard -94 used as documentation like this?

Show all headers | View raw

"Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> wrote in message
news:d79ca390-5451-443c-9025-b81bc7138dd9@d17g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 28, 11:59 pm, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@notemailnot.cmm>
> wrote:
> > "Alex McDonald" <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote in message
> >
news:3b2ef384-e567-4826-afa7-b3cae7804190@m10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
...

> > > [...] and I would not advise making up copyright marks.
>
> > No one is making up copyright marks. He has made up a name for the 94
> > specification. He thought it needed to be copyrighted since there is a
> > standard. It doesn't. The name he presented is his content. It doesn't
> > need a copyright. It didn't come from the standard. But, since "dpANS"
> > is part of the drafts, I suggested alternate names, which are my content
> > or his if he uses them or makes up something else, if he is worried
> > about some type of copyright infringement on "dpANS". He shouldn't
> > be since it's not copyrightable, i.e., too small for protection.
>
> Neither you nor I are lawyers, [...]

True.

> [...] but you appear to be much more confused
> on this issue.

I disagree.

> I'm not even clear on what you are claiming or
> suggesting be done here.

That's abundantly clear.

> ANS is a trademark, and using it in the way
> proposed -- i.e. as a copyright mark -- isn't correct.

What copyright mark?

No one is constructing a copyright mark...

3rd time:
He placed an unecessary copyright mark on what he thought was the copyright
protected name of the specification.  It's not the name of the
specification.  Even if it was the name of the specification, the name is
not protected under copyright law.  But, if he's worried about infringement,
he can come up with any name for the specification that he wishes for it.
That's his content.

If his Forth is non-commercial in nature, he can't even be held liable for
copyright infringement in the US.  Proof of financial damages is a
_mandatory_ requirement for copyright infringement, and probably for
trademarks too.


Rod Pemberton

Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Can draft standard -94 used as documentation like this? Hannu Vuolasaho <firstname.lastname@tut.fi.invalid> - 2012-06-28 00:35 +0000
  Re: Can draft standard -94 used as documentation like this? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-06-27 14:46 -1000
  Re: Can draft standard -94 used as documentation like this? Mikael Nordman <oh2aun@invalid.com> - 2012-06-28 07:10 +0300
  Re: Can draft standard -94 used as documentation like this? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-06-28 04:31 -0400
    Re: Can draft standard -94 used as documentation like this? Heikki Kallasjoki <fis+usenet@zem.fi> - 2012-06-28 08:41 +0000
      Re: Can draft standard -94 used as documentation like this? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-06-28 09:21 -0700
      Re: Can draft standard -94 used as documentation like this? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-06-28 18:56 -0400
    Re: Can draft standard -94 used as documentation like this? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-06-28 09:05 -0700
      Re: Can draft standard -94 used as documentation like this? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-06-28 18:59 -0400
        Re: Can draft standard -94 used as documentation like this? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-06-29 04:27 -0700
          Re: Can draft standard -94 used as documentation like this? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-06-29 22:37 -0400
            Re: Can draft standard -94 used as documentation like this? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-06-29 22:01 -0700
        Re: Can draft standard -94 used as documentation like this? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-06-29 13:43 +0200
          Re: Can draft standard -94 used as documentation like this? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-06-29 22:35 -0400
            Re: Can draft standard -94 used as documentation like this? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-06-29 20:29 -0700
        Re: Can draft standard -94 used as documentation like this? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-06-29 08:20 -0700
    Re: Can draft standard -94 used as documentation like this? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-06-28 19:04 +0000
  Re: Can draft standard -94 used as documentation like this? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-06-28 02:54 -0700
    Re: Can draft standard -94 used as documentation like this? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-06-28 03:02 -0700
      Re: Can draft standard -94 used as documentation like this? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-06-28 06:04 -0500
      Re: Can draft standard -94 used as documentation like this? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-06-28 12:19 +0000
        Re: Can draft standard -94 used as documentation like this? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-06-29 00:47 +0200
      Re: Can draft standard -94 used as documentation like this? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-06-28 19:06 +0000
      Re: Can draft standard -94 used as documentation like this? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-06-28 08:54 -1000
    Re: Can draft standard -94 used as documentation like this? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-06-28 08:52 -1000
  Re: Can draft standard -94 used as documentation like this? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-06-28 09:01 -0700

csiph-web