I am NOT a lawyer, ... 
Author Message
 I am NOT a lawyer, ...

I am NOT a lawyer - nor do I "play one" on the internet <G>

(For those outside of the US, this refers to an old series of TV ads that
start, "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV.)

HOWEVER, there are some legal issues that I thought I would "bring to your
attention" (and ask you to pass on to anyone else who might be interested).
And YES, this is "ON-topic" to COBOL.

Please see a paper (particularly the *SECOND* Issue) that I submitted to J4
(the ANSI-ish) COBOL group which can be viewed at:

    http://www.*-*-*.com/

If you think that either of these issues impact you (or your "vendor of
choice" - or any language reference manual, text-book, or other hard- or
soft-copy material) that you might have access to in the future, please do
NOT respond to me.  For a change, I do NOT recommend you contacting J4 itself
(which can really do nothing about this).  Instead, you need to express your
concerns and/or ask for clarification from the NCITS (formerly X3)
Secretariat.  For information on how to contact them, go to

    http://www.*-*-*.com/

This really only applies to US residents or those doing business in the US.
If you are in another country, then I recommend that you contact YOUR
"national Standards body" *now* (not AFTER the next COBOL Standard gets
published). For information about "your" national body, see

    http://www.*-*-*.com/

****

NOTE WELL:
  This may seem to many to be an "obscure" topic that you don't need to worry
about - that someone else will "solve" for you.  However, I think this is
something that SIGNIFICANT "user-input" can stop before it starts.

--
Bill Klein
    wmklein <at> ix dot netcom dot com



Sat, 22 Jun 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 I am NOT a lawyer, ...
I am not an attorney, solicitor, or lawyer.  However, I believe that you may
be over reacting here.

The standards group here is a quasi-governmental body.  And, publishers of
COBOL texts are members of each part of this standards group.  Therefore, I
think it highly unlikely that they [any part of the standards committee(s)]
would cause such a problem with copyrights as you are suggesting.  But, even
should they do this, would not the documents they publish/develop not be a
public domain item to start with?

Now, knowing that the "HAL" Corp. does make large use of this matter (or at
least has in the past) and has put it in their licensed material as well as
their general available matter (both of which are copyright protected as I
recall), I don't think they will stand by and allow such a thing to happen.

Regards,
Steve Thompson
OSP LLC
330/335-9907 office
330/334-2097 fax

Quote:

>I am NOT a lawyer - nor do I "play one" on the internet <G>

>(For those outside of the US, this refers to an old series of TV ads that
>start, "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV.)

>HOWEVER, there are some legal issues that I thought I would "bring to your
>attention" (and ask you to pass on to anyone else who might be interested).
>And YES, this is "ON-topic" to COBOL.

>Please see a paper (particularly the *SECOND* Issue) that I submitted to J4
>(the ANSI-ish) COBOL group which can be viewed at:

>    http://people.ne.mediaone.net/doncobol/00-0172.doc

<snip>


Sun, 23 Jun 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 I am NOT a lawyer, ...
Actually, both the ANSI and ISO Standards groups are getting VERY much into
the "copyrighted" material business - and selling "restricted" copies of
their documents.  So far, the charges they have made for copies have been
"semi-reasonable"  (although the current ANSI COBOL Standard costs $85 - the
last time I checked.)  Their BIG issue is that they are trying (for other
Standards) to PREVENT anyone from distributing them (in part or whole) on the
web.  For the "new" Standards, I think they can "get away with this" - but
for the COBOL Standard (because of the old rules), I do not think they can.

For the C "language standard" (for example) they went thru a long
"discussion" with Bell Labs (as I recall) and basically would NOT publish it
as an ANSI Standard until Bell "signed-over" the rights to them.

They have, for other languages, also REQUIRED all vendors to get permission
before they could quote from the Standard in their reference materials.

So, NO, I don't think I am over-reacting.  However, if you sent your "view"
as a question to NCITS, then they could give you their "official" position on
it.

--
Bill Klein
    wmklein <at> ix dot netcom dot com

Quote:
> I am not an attorney, solicitor, or lawyer.  However, I believe that you
may
> be over reacting here.

> The standards group here is a quasi-governmental body.  And, publishers of
> COBOL texts are members of each part of this standards group.  Therefore, I
> think it highly unlikely that they [any part of the standards committee(s)]
> would cause such a problem with copyrights as you are suggesting.  But,
even
> should they do this, would not the documents they publish/develop not be a
> public domain item to start with?

> Now, knowing that the "HAL" Corp. does make large use of this matter (or at
> least has in the past) and has put it in their licensed material as well as
> their general available matter (both of which are copyright protected as I
> recall), I don't think they will stand by and allow such a thing to happen.

> Regards,
> Steve Thompson
> OSP LLC
> 330/335-9907 office
> 330/334-2097 fax




- Show quoted text -

Quote:
> >I am NOT a lawyer - nor do I "play one" on the internet <G>

> >(For those outside of the US, this refers to an old series of TV ads that
> >start, "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV.)

> >HOWEVER, there are some legal issues that I thought I would "bring to your
> >attention" (and ask you to pass on to anyone else who might be
interested).
> >And YES, this is "ON-topic" to COBOL.

> >Please see a paper (particularly the *SECOND* Issue) that I submitted to
J4
> >(the ANSI-ish) COBOL group which can be viewed at:

> >    http://people.ne.mediaone.net/doncobol/00-0172.doc
> <snip>



Sun, 23 Jun 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 I am NOT a lawyer, ...

So you are not a lawyer - who are you kidding <G> Now put your Rumpole
wig on for a second.

So far as I can tell the 'Good Book' isn't copyrighted. We are a
multi-faceted family so I checked an American King James version plus an
English Catholic version - see, we are even 'bi-lingual' - neither
indicates a copyright.

Bearing in mind that caveat in COBOL literature, "COBOL is an industry
language and is not the property of any company or group of
companies.....", how can there be a suggestion of copyright. OK for HAL,
Fujitisu, Merant etc. to say that their specific material is copyrighted
- but surely not the 'Standards', a body set up to promulgate the
original COBOL concept. Under law it would be like a central/federal
government introducing legislation which attempts to abrogate common
law, and any higher court rulings. (?)

Arguably they could make a case for a modest cost for materials - and
that is no big deal to corporate purchasers. But I betcha if lil' old
me, a one-man band, pleaded with the courts that their actions
prohibited me from effectively studying/using COBOL........?

Remember the incident, quoted in Jerry Garfunkel's 'COBOL 85' -
Travellers' Insurance putting the kybosh on the first revision to '74.
The instigator, Brophy. His 'cause' generated 2,300 negative
communications to the Standards' people. ('Brophy' - Hmmm - another
{*filter*}y Irishman <G>).

Jimmy ( a former common law, contractual law student; and like Brophy,
with roots going back to the Auld Sod <G>)



Sun, 23 Jun 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 I am NOT a lawyer, ...
Just so it is clear, the '85 Standard, the '89 Intrinsic Functions Amendment,
and the '91 Corrections Amendment *all* include a "COPYRIGHT" statement.
*However* - they also include the wording giving everyone the right to copy
any or all of the document.  I have previously let my opinion of what that
does to the "copyright" be known (to ANSI).  HOWEVER, now that there is talk
of ISO *REMOVING* the "Acknowledgement" - I do think this needs a LOT of
public (international and US) comment ASAP.

Therefore, Jimmy -
  Please DO contact the Canadian National Body at:

    Canada (SCC)
    Address:
    Standards Council of Canada
    45 O'Connor Street, Suite 1200
    Ottawa, Ontario K1P 6N7

        Telephone:+1 613 238 32 22
        Telefax:+1 613 995 45 64

        Web: http://www.*-*-*.com/

and let them know what you think about this.

--
Bill Klein
    wmklein <at> ix dot netcom dot com


Quote:


> So you are not a lawyer - who are you kidding <G> Now put your Rumpole
> wig on for a second.

> So far as I can tell the 'Good Book' isn't copyrighted. We are a
> multi-faceted family so I checked an American King James version plus an
> English Catholic version - see, we are even 'bi-lingual' - neither
> indicates a copyright.

> Bearing in mind that caveat in COBOL literature, "COBOL is an industry
> language and is not the property of any company or group of
> companies.....", how can there be a suggestion of copyright. OK for HAL,
> Fujitisu, Merant etc. to say that their specific material is copyrighted
> - but surely not the 'Standards', a body set up to promulgate the
> original COBOL concept. Under law it would be like a central/federal
> government introducing legislation which attempts to abrogate common
> law, and any higher court rulings. (?)

> Arguably they could make a case for a modest cost for materials - and
> that is no big deal to corporate purchasers. But I betcha if lil' old
> me, a one-man band, pleaded with the courts that their actions
> prohibited me from effectively studying/using COBOL........?

> Remember the incident, quoted in Jerry Garfunkel's 'COBOL 85' -
> Travellers' Insurance putting the kybosh on the first revision to '74.
> The instigator, Brophy. His 'cause' generated 2,300 negative
> communications to the Standards' people. ('Brophy' - Hmmm - another
> {*filter*}y Irishman <G>).

> Jimmy ( a former common law, contractual law student; and like Brophy,
> with roots going back to the Auld Sod <G>)



Sun, 23 Jun 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 I am NOT a lawyer, ...
Then who am I going to talk to if I want to post a rule from COBOL?  I
would hate to get sued for copyright infringement.


Sun, 23 Jun 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 I am NOT a lawyer, ...
And the place to write in New Zealand (to insure that the "Acknowledgement"
is kept in the next ISO Revision of COBOL) is:

    New Zealand (SNZ)

    Address:
        Standards New Zealand
        Radio New Zealand House
        155 The Terrace
        Wellington 6001

    Postal address:
        Private Bag 2439
        Wellington 6020

        Telephone:+64 4 498 59 90
        Telefax:+64 4 498 59 94

        Web:http://www.standards.co.nz/

(and before I end up posting EVERY national body address, you can find your
national body address at:

   http://www.iso.ch/addresse/membodies.html

--
Bill Klein
    wmklein <at> ix dot netcom dot com


Quote:
> says...

> >Just so it is clear, the '85 Standard, the '89 Intrinsic Functions
Amendment,
> >and the '91 Corrections Amendment *all* include a "COPYRIGHT" statement.
> >*However* - they also include the wording giving everyone the right to
copy
> >any or all of the document.  I have previously let my opinion of what that
> >does to the "copyright" be known (to ANSI).  HOWEVER, now that there is
talk
> >of ISO *REMOVING* the "Acknowledgement" - I do think this needs a LOT of
> >public (international and US) comment ASAP.

> Snipped....>--
> >Bill Klein

> WELL, I AM A LAWYER

> And I say, write!

> Its not what happens now that's so important as what some mealy minded
> beurocrat might do in the future when he is told to implement the 'user
pays'
> principle.

> In this country (NZ) we now have copyright included in our statutes! but we
got
> an assurance from the Government at the time that it would not be used to
> restrict access in any way to the laws of the land.

> If you want an example, our High Court Code is a good one.
> In the early days of (last) century, these were compiled into a large and
very
> expensive treatise on High Court procedure. As this was the ionly place
where
> the code was written down, and the author claimed copyright, it effectively
> meant either having to buy the book or fly by the seat of the pants if as
> library copy was not available.

> Back in 1985 the code was rewritten and included as a schedule at the back
of
> the Judicature Amendment Act (No2) 1985. At long last we could acquire the
Code
> for a mere $12.50 (NZ has been totally metric for many years now - wonder
how
> long it'll be before the reast of the world sees sense?)

> D J H Stringer




Sun, 23 Jun 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 I am NOT a lawyer, ...
You are probably correct about that Standard (and many others).  It is the
(infamous) "ACKNOWLEDGEMENT" that appears in the COBOL Standard (and has
since before ANSI took it over), that EXPLICITLY says that it may be copied
"in part or whole" and (re-)distributed in any form whatsoever.

If you haven't read that acknowledgement recently, then look at any ANSI
COBOL Standard - or any LRM and you'll see that I am *not* making this up.

--
Bill Klein
    wmklein <at> ix dot netcom dot com

Quote:
> The way I've always understood it (IANAL) to work with the ANSI X.12 EDI
> standards (a fair parallel?) is that while the standards themselves - that
> is, the ideas and concepts therein - are public domain, a specific
"tangible
> embodiement" (books, CDs, floppy disks, et al)  may be copyrighted, and
> reproduction of those copyright materials restricted to uses permitted by
> the copyright owner.

> Seems fair to me. That is, you may *use* the standards all you want and
> develop your own (copyrightable) tangible embodiements; however, you may
not
> copy, repackage and redistribute the creative work of others.

> --
> Michael Mattias
> Racine WI USA



- Show quoted text -

Quote:
> >Just so it is clear, the '85 Standard, the '89 Intrinsic Functions
> Amendment,
> >and the '91 Corrections Amendment *all* include a "COPYRIGHT" statement.
> >*However* - they also include the wording giving everyone the right to
copy
> >any or all of the document.  I have previously let my opinion of what that
> >does to the "copyright" be known (to ANSI).  HOWEVER, now that there is
> talk
> >of ISO *REMOVING* the "Acknowledgement" - I do think this needs a LOT of
> >public (international and US) comment ASAP.



Sun, 23 Jun 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 I am NOT a lawyer, ...

says...

Quote:

>Just so it is clear, the '85 Standard, the '89 Intrinsic Functions Amendment,
>and the '91 Corrections Amendment *all* include a "COPYRIGHT" statement.
>*However* - they also include the wording giving everyone the right to copy
>any or all of the document.  I have previously let my opinion of what that
>does to the "copyright" be known (to ANSI).  HOWEVER, now that there is talk
>of ISO *REMOVING* the "Acknowledgement" - I do think this needs a LOT of
>public (international and US) comment ASAP.

Snipped....>--
>Bill Klein

WELL, I AM A LAWYER

And I say, write!

Its not what happens now that's so important as what some mealy minded
beurocrat might do in the future when he is told to implement the 'user pays'
principle.

In this country (NZ) we now have copyright included in our statutes! but we got
an assurance from the Government at the time that it would not be used to
restrict access in any way to the laws of the land.

If you want an example, our High Court Code is a good one.
In the early days of (last) century, these were compiled into a large and very
expensive treatise on High Court procedure. As this was the ionly place where
the code was written down, and the author claimed copyright, it effectively
meant either having to buy the book or fly by the seat of the pants if as
library copy was not available.

Back in 1985 the code was rewritten and included as a schedule at the back of
the Judicature Amendment Act (No2) 1985. At long last we could acquire the Code
for a mere $12.50 (NZ has been totally metric for many years now - wonder how
long it'll be before the reast of the world sees sense?)

D J H Stringer



Mon, 24 Jun 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 I am NOT a lawyer, ...

Quote:

> Then who am I going to talk to if I want to post a rule from COBOL?  I
> would hate to get sued for copyright infringement.

So Howard, do what Bill is suggesting - START SHOUTING !

How about you Simon the the two colonials from the Antipodes. Refer to
Bill's original message. Pete, want greater clarification - talk to
'Stringer' the fellow Kiwi in Christchurch - see his message.

Ed you have a stake in this with your views on open COBOL  - how about
you ?

Jimmy



Mon, 24 Jun 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 I am NOT a lawyer, ...
The way I've always understood it (IANAL) to work with the ANSI X.12 EDI
standards (a fair parallel?) is that while the standards themselves - that
is, the ideas and concepts therein - are public domain, a specific "tangible
embodiement" (books, CDs, floppy disks, et al)  may be copyrighted, and
reproduction of those copyright materials restricted to uses permitted by
the copyright owner.

Seems fair to me. That is, you may *use* the standards all you want and
develop your own (copyrightable) tangible embodiements; however, you may not
copy, repackage and redistribute the creative work of others.

--
Michael Mattias
Racine WI USA

Quote:

>Just so it is clear, the '85 Standard, the '89 Intrinsic Functions
Amendment,
>and the '91 Corrections Amendment *all* include a "COPYRIGHT" statement.
>*However* - they also include the wording giving everyone the right to copy
>any or all of the document.  I have previously let my opinion of what that
>does to the "copyright" be known (to ANSI).  HOWEVER, now that there is
talk
>of ISO *REMOVING* the "Acknowledgement" - I do think this needs a LOT of
>public (international and US) comment ASAP.



Mon, 24 Jun 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 I am NOT a lawyer, ...


Quote:
> The way I've always understood it (IANAL) to work with the ANSI X.12
EDI
> standards (a fair parallel?) is that while the standards
themselves - that
> is, the ideas and concepts therein - are public domain, a specific
"tangible
> embodiement" (books, CDs, floppy disks, et al)  may be copyrighted,
and
> reproduction of those copyright materials restricted to uses
permitted by
> the copyright owner.

Don't think so. The physical embodiment of the creative idea is
irrelevant to the copyright (although the work has to have some
physical form to copyright it in the first place). If the original
material is in the 'public domain,' all representations of that work
are non-copyrightable. If an author adds creative material to the the
public domain stuff - such as explaining how a COBOL verb works - that
part (the author-contributed part) is subject to copyright.

Of course there is no penalty (as far as I can determine) for
asserting a copyright where none exists.

Quote:

> Seems fair to me. That is, you may *use* the standards all you want
and
> develop your own (copyrightable) tangible embodiements; however, you
may not
> copy, repackage and redistribute the creative work of others.



Tue, 25 Jun 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 I am NOT a lawyer, ...

Quote:

>Then who am I going to talk to if I want to post a rule from COBOL?  I
>would hate to get sued for copyright infringement.

as soon as the warez newsgroups die out, i'll worry about getting sued
for posting a rule about cobol.




Thu, 27 Jun 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 I am NOT a lawyer, ...

Quote:


>>Then who am I going to talk to if I want to post a rule from COBOL?  I
>>would hate to get sued for copyright infringement.

>as soon as the warez newsgroups die out, i'll worry about getting sued
>for posting a rule about cobol.

Posting a small, credited excerpt from a copyrighted work is permitted under
the "fair use" doctrine.

Unfortunately, "fair use" more or less boils down to, "I can't define
infringement, but I know it when I see a retainer to handle a lawsuit."

MCM



Fri, 28 Jun 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 I am NOT a lawyer, ...
Heard on the radio this morning.  Someone patented century windowing in
1995 and is trying to get money from everybody who used this for Y2K
remediation.


Fri, 28 Jun 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 
 [ 27 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2]

 Relevant Pages 

1. I am not deaf, but am I mute?

2. I am not visible!!!!!

3. IDX not CDX - What am I missing

4. I am not able to read a barcode from a image

5. I am not able to execute new.ccf in coboldpc when I call coboldpc through labview

6. I am looking for drivers of Tektronix TDS694C, which are not available on website

7. Why I am not enthusiatic about OO COBOL

8. I am not a liar

9. No I am not D. Stamhope from ERG

10. Why I am not reaching callbacks ?

11. I should be sure but I am not

12. Problem with my split routine I am not understanding

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software