From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: Common Lisp The Language beta texinfo conversion
Date: 
Message-ID: <sfwllvakwc8.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Moop <····@moop.moop> writes:

> Hi folks,
> 
> For the past while (months, actually) I've been slowly converting
> Common Lisp The Language 2nd Edition to texinfo.
> 
> http://www.sfu.ca/~sabetts/docs

Did you get the permission of Guy Steele and Digital Press?
To my knowledge, this is not a public domain document.

The fact that something is not public domain doesn't mean they
wouldn't, under some circumstance or another, give permission.
But it does mean you have to ask.

From: Moop
Subject: Re: Common Lisp The Language beta texinfo conversion
Date: 
Message-ID: <87n0fqgeli.fsf@foo.foo>
Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:

> Moop <····@moop.moop> writes:
> 
> > Hi folks,
> > 
> > For the past while (months, actually) I've been slowly converting
> > Common Lisp The Language 2nd Edition to texinfo.
> > 
> > http://www.sfu.ca/~sabetts/docs
> 
> Did you get the permission of Guy Steele and Digital Press?
> To my knowledge, this is not a public domain document.
> 
> The fact that something is not public domain doesn't mean they
> wouldn't, under some circumstance or another, give permission.
> But it does mean you have to ask.

This is a concern.

I asked over a year ago with no reply. I've asked again and am
awaiting a reply.

I imagine they wouldn't be too worried. There is no money in CLTL. The
only thing they would be worried about is the integrity of the text,
which I've done my best to preserve given the limits of Texinfo.

Shawn
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: Common Lisp The Language beta texinfo conversion
Date: 
Message-ID: <sfwznjpdgyx.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Moop <····@moop.moop> writes:

> Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:
> 
> > Moop <····@moop.moop> writes:
> > 
> > > Hi folks,
> > > 
> > > For the past while (months, actually) I've been slowly converting
> > > Common Lisp The Language 2nd Edition to texinfo.
> > > 
> > > http://www.sfu.ca/~sabetts/docs
> > 
> > Did you get the permission of Guy Steele and Digital Press?
> > To my knowledge, this is not a public domain document.
> > 
> > The fact that something is not public domain doesn't mean they
> > wouldn't, under some circumstance or another, give permission.
> > But it does mean you have to ask.
> 
> This is a concern.
> 
> I asked over a year ago with no reply. I've asked again and am
> awaiting a reply.
> 
> I imagine they wouldn't be too worried. There is no money in CLTL. The
> only thing they would be worried about is the integrity of the text,
> which I've done my best to preserve given the limits of Texinfo.

This is not a good way to reason about copyright.

A copyright author may not be worried instead because they know that
statutory damages PER INFRINGEMENT on registered copyright works run
between $10K and $150K + the lawyers' fees it takes to collect.

That is, if you've registered your work in the copyright office, and I
expect that Digital Press has, you don't have to show "actual damages"
in order to collect.  There are statutory damages that are quite steep
and very easy to collect.

Get permission.
From: Moop
Subject: Re: Common Lisp The Language beta texinfo conversion
Date: 
Message-ID: <8765mdhn15.fsf@foo.foo>
Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:

> Moop <····@moop.moop> writes:
> 
> > Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:
> > 
> > > Moop <····@moop.moop> writes:
> > > 
> > > > Hi folks,
> > > > 
> > > > For the past while (months, actually) I've been slowly converting
> > > > Common Lisp The Language 2nd Edition to texinfo.
> > > > 
> > > > http://www.sfu.ca/~sabetts/docs
> > > 
> > > Did you get the permission of Guy Steele and Digital Press?
> > > To my knowledge, this is not a public domain document.
> > > 
> > > The fact that something is not public domain doesn't mean they
> > > wouldn't, under some circumstance or another, give permission.
> > > But it does mean you have to ask.
> > 
> > This is a concern.
> > 
> > I asked over a year ago with no reply. I've asked again and am
> > awaiting a reply.
> > 
> > I imagine they wouldn't be too worried. There is no money in CLTL. The
> > only thing they would be worried about is the integrity of the text,
> > which I've done my best to preserve given the limits of Texinfo.
> 
> This is not a good way to reason about copyright.
> 
> A copyright author may not be worried instead because they know that
> statutory damages PER INFRINGEMENT on registered copyright works run
> between $10K and $150K + the lawyers' fees it takes to collect.
> 
> That is, if you've registered your work in the copyright office, and I
> expect that Digital Press has, you don't have to show "actual damages"
> in order to collect.  There are statutory damages that are quite steep
> and very easy to collect.
> 
> Get permission.

Ouch. Yes, I will.

Shawn
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: Common Lisp The Language beta texinfo conversion
Date: 
Message-ID: <sfwsmph2n55.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Moop <····@moop.moop> writes:

> [... stuff that I don't have a way to reply to via private email ...]

If you send me a private email nessage, I can perhaps help you with this
further.  I can't initiate such a conversation myself because 
····@moop.moop isn't a valid email address.  Sigh.
From: Thien-Thi Nguyen
Subject: Re: Common Lisp The Language beta texinfo conversion
Date: 
Message-ID: <7gn0fmbsqh.fsf@gnufans.net>
Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:

> Get permission.

alternatively, translate it into another (human) language.

thi
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: Common Lisp The Language beta texinfo conversion
Date: 
Message-ID: <sfwy8z5dg3s.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Thien-Thi Nguyen <···@glug.org> writes:

> Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:
> 
> > Get permission.
> 
> alternatively, translate it into another (human) language.

I think (hope) this counts as a derivative work and 
still requires permission.

I think the phrase you're looking for is:

 Alternatively, write your own damned book!

Pardon my language here, but this notion of trying to find clever ways
to undercut someone's right to income on something they've worked hard
to produce really angers me.  If the person wants to donate the work,
that's one thing.  But if they don't, then people should have some respect.
From: Ingvar Mattsson
Subject: Re: Common Lisp The Language beta texinfo conversion
Date: 
Message-ID: <87isq9pdex.fsf@gruk.tech.ensign.ftech.net>
Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:

> Thien-Thi Nguyen <···@glug.org> writes:
> 
> > Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:
> > 
> > > Get permission.
> > 
> > alternatively, translate it into another (human) language.
> 
> I think (hope) this counts as a derivative work and 
> still requires permission.

As far as I know, the copyright of a translation of a written work
belongs to the original author. I can try to remember having a loko at
some translated books at home. This, obviously, reveals "common
practice" than "rule of law". The only translation I know of,
off-hand, where I think there's a joint copyright is the Swedish
translation of "G�del, Escher, Bach, an Eternal Golden Braid"[1],
where the translator (with permission from DRH) inserted some extra
material that eased using "T" as short-form for the Tortoise[2],
something that was significant in at least one of the dialogues.

> I think the phrase you're looking for is:
> 
>  Alternatively, write your own damned book!
> 
> Pardon my language here, but this notion of trying to find clever ways
> to undercut someone's right to income on something they've worked hard
> to produce really angers me.  If the person wants to donate the work,
> that's one thing.  But if they don't, then people should have some respect.

Indeed. Saying that, with some of the translation work I've done, I've
actually started doing the translation before having an OK from the
author, but I have (to the best of my knowledge) never published, in
any form, the translation without an OK. It's possibly-dodgy, since it
*is* technically infringing, but I see it more as "time-saving", since
I do the translation while still inspired to do it, rather than later.

//Ingvar
[1] G�del Escher, Bach, ett Evigt Gyllene band
[2] Sk�ldpadda, in Swedish (shield-toad).
-- 
Ingvar Mattsson; ······@hexapodia.net;
You can get further with a kind word and a 2x4
than you can with just a kind word.             Among others, Marcus Cole
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: Common Lisp The Language beta texinfo conversion
Date: 
Message-ID: <1xwxp5zm.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
Ingvar Mattsson <······@cathouse.bofh.se> writes:

> Indeed. Saying that, with some of the translation work I've done, I've
> actually started doing the translation before having an OK from the
> author, but I have (to the best of my knowledge) never published, in
> any form, the translation without an OK. It's possibly-dodgy, since it
> *is* technically infringing, but I see it more as "time-saving", since
> I do the translation while still inspired to do it, rather than later.

If you translate it for your own use it is `fair use'.  If you
*always* get permission before publishing, and have no intention of
publishing if you don't get permission, then you aren't infringing.
From: Ingvar Mattsson
Subject: Re: Common Lisp The Language beta texinfo conversion
Date: 
Message-ID: <87fzldnmfr.fsf@gruk.tech.ensign.ftech.net>
Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu> writes:

> Ingvar Mattsson <······@cathouse.bofh.se> writes:
> 
> > Indeed. Saying that, with some of the translation work I've done, I've
> > actually started doing the translation before having an OK from the
> > author, but I have (to the best of my knowledge) never published, in
> > any form, the translation without an OK. It's possibly-dodgy, since it
> > *is* technically infringing, but I see it more as "time-saving", since
> > I do the translation while still inspired to do it, rather than later.
> 
> If you translate it for your own use it is `fair use'.  If you
> *always* get permission before publishing, and have no intention of
> publishing if you don't get permission, then you aren't infringing.

Hm. Yes. In the cases I referred to, it was actually intended for
wider use.

//ingvar
-- 
(defun p(i d)(cond((not i)(terpri))((car i)(let((l(cadr i))(d(nthcdr(car i)d
)))(princ(elt(string(car d))l))(p(cddr i)d)))(t(princ #\space)(p(cdr i)d))))
(p'(76 2 1 3 1 4 1 6()0 5()16 10 0 7 0 8 0 9()2 6 0 0 12 4 23 4 1 4 8 8)(sort
(loop for x being the external-symbols in :cl collect (string x)) #'string<))
From: Christophe Rhodes
Subject: Re: Common Lisp The Language beta texinfo conversion
Date: 
Message-ID: <sqisq9gk5k.fsf@lambda.jcn.srcf.net>
Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu> writes:

> Ingvar Mattsson <······@cathouse.bofh.se> writes:
>
>> Indeed. Saying that, with some of the translation work I've done, I've
>> actually started doing the translation before having an OK from the
>> author, but I have (to the best of my knowledge) never published, in
>> any form, the translation without an OK. It's possibly-dodgy, since it
>> *is* technically infringing, but I see it more as "time-saving", since
>> I do the translation while still inspired to do it, rather than later.
>
> If you translate it for your own use it is `fair use'.  If you
> *always* get permission before publishing, and have no intention of
> publishing if you don't get permission, then you aren't infringing.

There is no concept of 'fair use' in British law; Ingvar is currently
a resident in the UK.

Christophe
-- 
http://www-jcsu.jesus.cam.ac.uk/~csr21/       +44 1223 510 299/+44 7729 383 757
(set-pprint-dispatch 'number (lambda (s o) (declare (special b)) (format s b)))
(defvar b "~&Just another Lisp hacker~%")    (pprint #36rJesusCollegeCambridge)
From: O-V R:nen
Subject: Re: Common Lisp The Language beta texinfo conversion
Date: 
Message-ID: <gtof01vywi.fsf@venus.ling.helsinki.fi>
Christophe Rhodes <·····@cam.ac.uk> writes:
> Ingvar Mattsson <······@cathouse.bofh.se> writes:

> > As far as I know, the copyright of a translation of a written work
> > belongs to the original author.

(Actually it belongs to *both* the original author and the translator.
Or the translator's right to the translation depends on the original
author's right to the original work, if you'd rather put it that way.)

> There is no concept of 'fair use' in British law; Ingvar is currently
> a resident in the UK.

And even though AFAIK the "fair use" concept as known in the US
doesn't exist anywhere else in Europe, either, were he a resident of
eg Sweden, making a translation for private use would be covered by
the exemption for making (a (very) limited number of) copies of a work
for private use, which also allows one to make derived works.
(Actually I was a bit surprised to find that such an exemption doesn't
exist in the UK.)
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: Common Lisp The Language beta texinfo conversion
Date: 
Message-ID: <sfwadblf170.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
····················@ling.helsinki.fi.invalid (O-V R:nen) writes:

> Christophe Rhodes <·····@cam.ac.uk> writes:
> 
> > There is no concept of 'fair use' in British law; Ingvar is currently
> > a resident in the UK.
> 
> And even though AFAIK the "fair use" concept as known in the US
> doesn't exist anywhere else in Europe, either, were he a resident of
> eg Sweden, making a translation for private use would be covered by
> the exemption for making (a (very) limited number of) copies of a work
> for private use, which also allows one to make derived works.
> (Actually I was a bit surprised to find that such an exemption doesn't
> exist in the UK.)

I'm sure one of these days Bush will lay down the law for the UK on this
matter.  As you surely by now have guessed, we in the US can no longer
stand idly by while this kind of thing is going on in the world...

(sigh;)
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: Common Lisp The Language beta texinfo conversion
Date: 
Message-ID: <sfwel0xf1dk.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Ingvar Mattsson <······@cathouse.bofh.se> writes:

> Indeed. Saying that, with some of the translation work I've done, I've
> actually started doing the translation before having an OK from the
> author, but I have (to the best of my knowledge) never published, in
> any form, the translation without an OK. It's possibly-dodgy, since it
> *is* technically infringing, but I see it more as "time-saving", since
> I do the translation while still inspired to do it, rather than later.

I suspect that this is an example of why they say that no single
aspect of the fair use criteria must always be applied.  I bet that
even if you made a copy and a translation for this purpose, with the
intent of contacting the author later, that it would be counted as
fair use since your underlying motive was not to economically undercut,
etc.  Not that I have special insight into how a court would rule, but
I know they are constantly remarking that there are no hard and fast
rules in interpreting the four fair use criteria (fairuse.stanford.edu
for reasonable tutorial info, if anyone doesn't know what I'm talking
about by fair use).
From: Shawn Betts
Subject: Re: Common Lisp The Language beta texinfo conversion
Date: 
Message-ID: <871xwwd2lo.fsf@foo.foo>
Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:

> Thien-Thi Nguyen <···@glug.org> writes:
> 
> > Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:
> > 
> > > Get permission.
> > 
> > alternatively, translate it into another (human) language.
> 
> I think (hope) this counts as a derivative work and 
> still requires permission.
> 
> I think the phrase you're looking for is:
> 
>  Alternatively, write your own damned book!
> 
> Pardon my language here, but this notion of trying to find clever ways
> to undercut someone's right to income on something they've worked hard
> to produce really angers me.  If the person wants to donate the work,
> that's one thing.  But if they don't, then people should have some respect.

I'm not trying to undercut anyone's right to income. The book is BEING
GIVEN AWAY. I just want to make it more useful! I wouldn't make any
money off it.

Shawn
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: Common Lisp The Language beta texinfo conversion
Date: 
Message-ID: <sfwsmpcuyed.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Shawn Betts <·······@remove.this.part.sfu.ca> writes:

> I'm not trying to undercut anyone's right to income. The book is BEING
> GIVEN AWAY. I just want to make it more useful! I wouldn't make any
> money off it.

To be clear:

The book is being given away on particular terms.  Often such a decision
involves subtle issues you may not be aware of.

For example, I have papers that I allow people to read for free, but I
have not relinquished rights to them.  I continue to own the copyright
(a) so that I can make updates centrally and not have to worry that
others have copies I will not be able to affect, (b) so I can control
the style of presentation, that is, so that I can decide how I want to
be rendered in a given medium--just because I don't publish in
texinfo, for example, doesn't mean I would appreciate someone
republishing my works there because I would want to personally choose
the formatting, not have others choose it for me, (c) so I can make
decisions about how and whether to be rendered into other formats, and
(d) so that I can potentially make revenue-related decisions about
whether other presentations of my work in this or that format could
give me money even if the present stuff does not, to include adding
advertising and even also to include drawing back in and not giving
out further free copies of my work if the Internet made it easier to
charge people micropayments for access.

These are examples of why my documents are controlled. It may not be that
he cares about any of the things I do.  But the point is that you must
still ask.  You are not free to assume that because he might not care, nor
because you might not care, that the author might not care.  The whole
point of copyright, implementationally, is to de-couple the notion of
"sharing" the work from "giving up all rights to" the work.  It is therefore
sometimes 'visually' confusing when someone has appeared to "share" something
with you because you might think they have "given up all rights", but that's
not so.

Further, there is no canonical notion of "what makes something more useful"
nor is there a requirement that people allow useful things to be done to
their work.

And, moreover, your not making money off of it is also not relevant.  It may
be relevant in reverse, actually.  You may, by creating something "useful"
that is not charged for, be precluding the option of the author doing the
same thing and charging for that usefulness.  Maybe or maybe not in this case.
But the idea that you are not making money implying that you cannot be keeping
someone else from making money is completely bogus as a general rule of
reasoning, and is not valid as logical support for a claim that you are
causing no economic harm.  If you are not causing economic harm, the reasons
are more complex than the reasons you cite.  It may be that the person doesn't
want the money he could make, or it may be that the market won't bear the
price.  But, importantly, even if the market wouldn't bear the price, the
author STILL has the right to TRY to make money even if that effort is,
in point of fact, certain to fail.
From: Marc Spitzer
Subject: Re: Common Lisp The Language beta texinfo conversion
Date: 
Message-ID: <86smpcp6ev.fsf@bogomips.optonline.net>
Shawn Betts <·······@remove.this.part.sfu.ca> writes:


> I'm not trying to undercut anyone's right to income. The book is BEING
> GIVEN AWAY. I just want to make it more useful! I wouldn't make any
> money off it.
> 
> Shawn

Shawn,

you seem to be missing a basic point:

you are not the owner of the property 
in question so what you want to do with
it is besides the point.

Mr Graham may not want it more useful, using
your definition of useful, and if he wants to 
he can sue the living shit out of you for 
violating his rights as the owner of the book
in question, if you infringe on his property.

quit your whining and write him a letter and 
ask him if you can do what you want.  WTF is
so hard about that?  He may say yes.

Seriously stop trying to defend your glaring
stupid mistake, it only makes you look like
a childish fucking idiot.  On the hope that 
you are not one I am asking you to stop acting
like one.

marc
From: Shawn Betts
Subject: Re: Common Lisp The Language beta texinfo conversion
Date: 
Message-ID: <87n0f81icu.fsf@foo.foo>
Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:

> Shawn,
> 
> you seem to be missing a basic point:
> 
> you are not the owner of the property in question so what you want
> to do with it is besides the point.

Well, I'm investigating what I can and cannot do. But the big
copyright discussion is off-topic for this ng and I should have posted
elsewhere.

> Mr Graham may not want it more useful, using your definition of
> useful, and if he wants to he can sue the living shit out of you for
> violating his rights as the owner of the book in question, if you
> infringe on his property.

Yeah, Kent mentioned this in great detail.

> quit your whining and write him a letter and ask him if you can do
> what you want.  WTF is so hard about that?  He may say yes.

I have.

> Seriously stop trying to defend your glaring stupid mistake, it only
> makes you look like a childish fucking idiot.  On the hope that you
> are not one I am asking you to stop acting like one.

It's sort of hard to stand by and just take this one. But I s'pose
there are childish fucking idiots like you and me lurking around here
and every now and again they pop up and piss on everything.

My thanks goes to Kent for being reasonable and calm when you could
have just thrown dung in my face like this kid.

Shawn