Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!aioe.org!news.glorb.com!news-out.readnews.com!transit4.readnews.com!hitnews.eu!s09-10.readnews.com!not-for-mail
From: Richard Outerbridge <outer@interlog.com>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design,sci.crypt,comp.dsp,sci.math,sci.physics
Subject: Re: information theory? (copyright question followup)
Organization: SAII
References: <7f70f946-bf5b-4546-a232-5b7353a542cd@u37g2000prh.googlegroups.com> <4eaf7bf5.547777542@www.eternal-september.org> <5b93b1ba-5a4b-48eb-ba30-1ff212fd7839@f36g2000vbm.googlegroups.com> <9cd896f5-11aa-4600-82c6-a1cb0966f956@j36g2000prh.googlegroups.com> <as7sq.10877$Ra6.1648@newsfe07.iad> <j8r3l6$5ha$1@reader1.panix.com> <MPG.293813d8de181f2098a3b2@hamster.jcbsbsdomain.local>
Posted-And-Mailed: yes
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X)
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 01:37:27 -0500
Message-ID: <outer-4F82EC.01372625112011@us.Ngroups.NET>
Lines: 31
NNTP-Posting-Host: 7f3872b6.ngroups.net
X-Trace: DXC=co^L?:;W6:k8Ac=Gb=XYen\PAUf5QohP`_NQN0iN6j2hC?A[N<3ma_lb8RIBX5MH6nTa7Q25cJ0Xc8E^>gH2ZDGmm9MkYTjN]1`
X-Complaints-To: abuse@ngroups.net
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.dsp:7148

In article <MPG.293813d8de181f2098a3b2@hamster.jcbsbsdomain.local>,
 "J. Clarke" <jclarkeusenet@cox.net> wrote:

> In article <j8r3l6$5ha$1@reader1.panix.com>, 
> john@please.see.sig.for.email.com says...
> > 
> > In sci.math Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > [[snip]]
> > > You could do worse than look for the collected works of Ed Jaynes - it 
> > > used to be available online at one time but now it is published.
> > > 
> > > http://www.amazon.com/T-Jaynes-Probability-Statistics-Statistical/dp/07923
> > > 02133
> > 
> > Just curious -- if it was freely available online at one time,
> > and I assume legally at that time, how does later publishing
> > a paper copy retroactively affect online legality? I'd have
> > assumed any originally-legal online info remains legal regardless
> > of who else prints it on paper. Is that wrong?
> 
> Don't conflate "free" with "public domain".  They aren't the same.  A 
> copyright holder can make something available for free and later change 
> his mind and charge for it.

Which is why serious licensees will always require free non-exclusive
perpetual licenses from just such copyright owners.  Their heirs and 
assigns will eventually get things into the public domain.  At least
things then stand a higher chance of avoiding silly legal challenges
and patent disputes.

outer