Update to FAQ - copyright notice

[Garrett Smith]

I have added a copyright notice to the FAQ. THe copyright appears at the
bottom of the page.

| This FAQ is (C) Copyright Garrett Smith 2008-2009 on behalf of the
| newsgroup comp.lang.javascript. Upon change of the FAQ maintainer, the
| copyright will automatically pass over to the new maintainer.

This was done so that anyone wishing to host the FAQ on another server
may do so, without appearing surreptitious.

I may also be hosting this as a back up, on my own web site, in the
event jibbering goes down again.

Garrett

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

I have added a copyright notice to the FAQ. THe copyright appears at the
bottom of the page.

| This FAQ is (C) Copyright Garrett Smith 2008-2009 on behalf of the
| newsgroup comp.lang.javascript.

It isn't. Change that!


PointedEars

 

[Garrett Smith]

It isn't. Change that!

To what?

 

[Dr J R Stockton]

In comp.lang.javascript message <[email protected]
september.org>, Mon, 18 May 2009 23:55:21, Garrett Smith

I have added a copyright notice to the FAQ. THe copyright appears at
the bottom of the page.

| This FAQ is (C) Copyright Garrett Smith 2008-2009 on behalf of the
| newsgroup comp.lang.javascript. Upon change of the FAQ maintainer, the
| copyright will automatically pass over to the new maintainer.

This was done so that anyone wishing to host the FAQ on another server
may do so, without appearing surreptitious.

It only has that effect if the other person is a new FAQ maintainer or
obtains permission. We should permit others to host copies, but with
the condition that the copies be up to date. Wording used in newsgroup
c.l.p.b, giving that permission :

Verbatim copying and redistribution of an up-to-date version this
mini-FAQ or any part of it is permitted and encouraged in any medium
provided the copyright notice and this notice are preserved.

On the other hand, if it is preferred that permission must be asked for,
then the approved URLs should be given in the FAQ.

I may also be hosting this as a back up, on my own web site, in the
event jibbering goes down again.

That address should be in the FAQ, and prudent users should keep a note
of it. Jibbering is down, 18:15 UT.

 

[Garrett Smith]

In comp.lang.javascript message <[email protected]
september.org>, Mon, 18 May 2009 23:55:21, Garrett Smith


It only has that effect if the other person is a new FAQ maintainer or
obtains permission. We should permit others to host copies, but with
the condition that the copies be up to date. Wording used in newsgroup
c.l.p.b, giving that permission :

Verbatim copying and redistribution of an up-to-date version this
mini-FAQ or any part of it is permitted and encouraged in any medium
provided the copyright notice and this notice are preserved.

Good idea. That should have an entry section: "Copying", with the above
paragraph, followed by the copyright notice.

Revised:-
| This FAQ may be copied in verbatim, in whole or in part, provided the
| copyright notice and this notice are preserved.


Hosted mirrors:
[list of urls]

If anyone wants to splurge for a new domain name and hosting, that would
be cool.

A comment of yours on another thread mentioned providing an index to the
Notes. I think linking directly to the notes would be sufficient, but
might be a good idea to simply have just the notes.

On the other hand, if it is preferred that permission must be asked for,
then the approved URLs should be given in the FAQ.

I don't have any strong inclination either way. The person doing the
hosting would ideally post a notice on the list:-

| This FAQ may be copied in verbatim, in whole or in part, provided the
| copyright notice and this notice are preserved. The person doing the
| copying shall post a new thread on comp.lang.javascript containing a
| direct link to the copy prior to publicly publishing said copy.

Does this seem reasonable, or should people be just allowed to host this
thing freely, but not allowed to change it? The idea is that the group
should know about other copies and the copies should not be altered or
outdated versions, but copies of the genuine comp.lang.javascript FAQ.

That address should be in the FAQ, and prudent users should keep a note
of it. Jibbering is down, 18:15 UT.

Huh. It is up now. At least where I am.

Garrett

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

To what?

To something considerably less presumptuous. Something that at least
remotely resembles the truth.


PointedEars

 

[Garrett Smith]

To something considerably less presumptuous. Something that at least
remotely resembles the truth.

What is not truthful about that? Somebody needs to hold a copyright The
FAQ is a collective, though not unanimous effort from the members here.

I acknowledge that there are parts that I have to change and these
should be changed and hopefully, in time, will be changed. Some of the
changes are not as easy as might seem. The "books" section, for example,
is very touchy.

For that, I actually think a "book review" section would be better,
where there would be a list of books, with a link (or links) to that
book review thread(s) and nothing more. No endorsement just: "Book
Reviews" and a possible short disclaimer that says no books are
officially endorsed. But this is a different topic.

My point is that it is an FAQ for the group, even though the contents
are not wholly agreed on.

I am not getting a personal advantage out of placing a copyright. The
idea is the decoupling of the site jibbering.com with the FAQ, thus
allowing the FAQ to be published elsewhere, and under terms that need to
be defined.

What exactly is the problem?

Garrett

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

What is not truthful about that? Somebody needs to hold a copyright

Yes, those who have contributed to it. Not you alone, and certainly not you
on behalf of the newsgroup (that is, all the contributors of the newsgroup).
There has not been an election, let alone a strawpoll, that you become FAQ
maintainer. And, FWIW, I still don't think you know what it means to be a
FAQ maintainer. The record shows.

The FAQ is a collective, though not unanimous effort from the members here.

There are no "members".

I am not getting a personal advantage out of placing a copyright.

But you do.

The idea is the decoupling of the site jibbering.com with the FAQ, thus
allowing the FAQ to be published elsewhere, and under terms that need to
be defined.

Good idea, bad implementation.

What exactly is the problem?

You did it wrong, again; and, again, without consulting the contributors of
this newsgroup about it. Isn't it a bit presumptuous of you to take a work
built in years by others well before you arrived here, without
legitimisation, continuously imposing your wishes upon it, and then dare
taking copyright of it on behalf of the newsgroup?


PointedEars

 

[Jorge]

I acknowledge that there are parts that I have to change and these
should be changed and hopefully, in time, will be changed. Some of the
changes are not as easy as might seem. The "books" section, for example,
is very touchy.

Yes. Add "The Good Parts". Thanks,

 

[Jorge]

(...)
Isn't it a bit presumptuous of you to take a work
built in years by others well before you arrived here, without
legitimisation, continuously imposing your wishes upon it, and then dare
taking copyright of it on behalf of the newsgroup?

Yes, it is. For once, I agree with Lahn.

 

[Garrett Smith]

Yes, those who have contributed to it. Not you alone, and certainly not you
on behalf of the newsgroup (that is, all the contributors of the newsgroup).
There has not been an election, let alone a strawpoll, that you become FAQ
maintainer. And, FWIW, I still don't think you know what it means to be a
FAQ maintainer. The record shows.


There are no "members".


But you do.

No, I don't.

Good idea, bad implementation.


You did it wrong, again; and, again, without consulting the contributors of
this newsgroup about it.

This thread *is* the consultation. So far, there have been no other
proposals. The last thread we had about this died.

Isn't it a bit presumptuous of you to take a work

built in years by others well before you arrived here, without
legitimisation, continuously imposing your wishes upon it, and then dare
taking copyright of it on behalf of the newsgroup?

It seems that you are proposing that having the copyright in the FAQ,
with the current FAQ maintainer as the copyright holder, and with no
mention of previous maintainers, could have the effect of making the
impression that the current FAQ maintainer (which is me) is taking
credit for others' work.

In that case, it might be a good idea to add a list of previous
maintainers' names.

To have a copyright, there needs to be a copyright holder, which could
be an organization or an individual. If the copyright holder is not to
be the current FAQ maintainer, then who should? Jim?

Garrett

 

[Garrett Smith]

Yes, it is. For once, I agree with Lahn.

Thusly, I've removed the copyright notice.

Can you post up a proposal for a copyright notice?

Garrett

 

[Dr J R Stockton]

In comp.lang.javascript message <[email protected]
september.org>, Tue, 19 May 2009 18:49:31, Garrett Smith

What is not truthful about that? Somebody needs to hold a copyright The
FAQ is a collective, though not unanimous effort from the members here.

What exactly is the problem?

Thomas Lahn's obnoxious arrogance : nothing more than that. If he does
not agree with the rest of the newsgroup, he can always depart and
concentrate on annoying de.c.l.j.


Re another article : not "in verbatim"; "verbatim" takes no "in" - and
it could be rephrased better in English, as in "redistribution of an
unmodified up-to-date version of this". Anyway, I've been reading
Clavius at ECHO, which is more than enough Latin.

 

[Erwin Moller]

Garrett Smith schreef:

No, I don't.


This thread *is* the consultation. So far, there have been no other
proposals. The last thread we had about this died.

Isn't it a bit presumptuous of you to take a work

It seems that you are proposing that having the copyright in the FAQ,
with the current FAQ maintainer as the copyright holder, and with no
mention of previous maintainers, could have the effect of making the
impression that the current FAQ maintainer (which is me) is taking
credit for others' work.

In that case, it might be a good idea to add a list of previous
maintainers' names.

To have a copyright, there needs to be a copyright holder, which could
be an organization or an individual. If the copyright holder is not to
be the current FAQ maintainer, then who should? Jim?

Garrett

Hi,

This may be a stupid question, but why do you/we need that copyright stuff?
What is it you/we are afraid of?
That somebody copies it and republishes it?
Why care?
I do like the FAQ regardless if it has a copyright notice or not. ;-)

Regards,
Erwin Moller


--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare

 

[Jorge]

Hi,

This may be a stupid question, but why do you/we need that copyright stuff?
(...)

What it needs is a copyleft... http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Thusly, I've removed the copyright notice.

Can you post up a proposal for a copyright notice?

For community efforts, I prefer the Mozilla.org style, found in the
Help/About dialogs of e.g. Firefox and Thunderbird.

"(C) 19...-200... Contributors. All rights reserved. [trademarks]"

Individual contributors are then named in the Credits.

I think something like that would be acceptable for all.


PointedEars

 

[Garrett Smith]

Thusly, I've removed the copyright notice.

Can you post up a proposal for a copyright notice?

For community efforts, I prefer the Mozilla.org style, found in the
Help/About dialogs of e.g. Firefox and Thunderbird.

"(C) 19...-200... Contributors. All rights reserved. [trademarks]"

Individual contributors are then named in the Credits.

Should probably be sufficient in this case.

I think probably not for the same reasons it is sufficient for Mozilla,
though. Mozilla has lawyers, unlike comp.lang.javascript.

I think something like that would be acceptable for all.

Does contributors include all prior FAQ maintainers? What about
contributions that were suggestions, such as:-

| 8.8 I get an error when trying to access an element by getElementById
| but I know it is in the document. What is wrong?

- which was based on a proposal by Conrad Lender. It is a question that
comes up a lot, and so, after his proposal, I added that to the FAQ.
There have been a lot of comments from DR JR Stockton, too. More
comments than I could list in the past yea and more from him than
everyone else combined.

There have been comments by others, some useful, some not yet applied,
and some obnoxious ramblings. There are also the ones who contribute by
saying nothing at all. These individuals contribute to the FAQ not
changing. Really, everyone reading the newsgroup contributes to the FAQ.
Even those who refuse to comment on the FAQ contribute to it.

So that was the thinking behind the "on behalf of the newsgroup
comp.lang.javascript". It is simple, short, and all-inclusive.

Garrett

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Jorge wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
(...)
Isn't it a bit presumptuous of you to take a work
built in years by others well before you arrived here, without
legitimisation, continuously imposing your wishes upon it, and then dare
taking copyright of it on behalf of the newsgroup?
Yes, it is. For once, I agree with Lahn.
Thusly, I've removed the copyright notice.

Can you post up a proposal for a copyright notice?

For community efforts, I prefer the Mozilla.org style, found in the
Help/About dialogs of e.g. Firefox and Thunderbird.

"(C) 19...-200... Contributors. All rights reserved. [trademarks]"

Individual contributors are then named in the Credits.

Should probably be sufficient in this case.

I think probably not for the same reasons it is sufficient for Mozilla,
though. Mozilla has lawyers, unlike comp.lang.javascript.

Common sense suffices.

Does contributors include all prior FAQ maintainers?

Of course. Had they not changed the FAQ based on their contributions and
those of group regulars, it would not have changed at all (for the better,
hopefully).

[...]
There have been comments by others, some useful, some not yet applied,
and some obnoxious ramblings.

Contribution should be understood as something having an objectively
positive effect here. If someone has made a comment that improved
the FAQ in that sense, they are a contributor to the FAQ.

There are also the ones who contribute by saying nothing at all.
These individuals contribute to the FAQ not changing.
Really, everyone reading the newsgroup contributes to the FAQ.
Even those who refuse to comment on the FAQ contribute to it.

Don't be ridiculous.

So that was the thinking behind the "on behalf of the newsgroup
comp.lang.javascript". It is simple, short, and all-inclusive.

It is too simple, and in combination with your name it is in fact exclusive.
You are not (merely) acting on behalf of the newsgroup (there was no
affirmative census to that end), and you do not hold the copyright on the
FAQ (else you could define who would be authorized to publish it elsewhere).
It is a community effort, and that should be reflected by the Copyright notice.


PointedEars, IANAL

 

[Dr J R Stockton]

In comp.lang.javascript message <[email protected]>
, Thu, 21 May 2009 00:08:48, Erwin Moller <Since_humans_read_this_I_am_s
(e-mail address removed)> posted:

This may be a stupid question, but why do you/we need that copyright stuff?

It is not legally necessary, because by the current law (of all
reputable countries) it actually adds nothing. But, because so many are
ignorant of the law and of ethical considerations, it is desirable that
there should be some such notice. Respectable people - perhaps still
the majority - will pay heed to whatever it says.

What is it you/we are afraid of?
That somebody copies it and republishes it?

There is no need to object to that. But, since that is illegal without
permission, that permission should be given in order that respectable
people know that copies are permitted.

However, it is strongly undesirable to have out-of-date copies on the
Net, except where they are in some sort of recognisable archive.
Therefore, it is well to state that only up-to-date copies are
permitted.

Why care?

Because people are not always fully informed of all relevant law, are
not always aware of applicable ethical considerations, and are sometimes
pig-headed, stupid, or dishonourable.

 

[Dr J R Stockton]

In comp.lang.javascript message <[email protected]>, Thu,

Really, you should, as was said before, post your significant draft
changes here and make them in the FAQ itself only then there is a
measure of agreement and no sound objections.

Common sense suffices.

And it is a pity that you do not have any.


Copyright has value. It can be sold or donated. There is no practical
way that an amorphous group with a fluctuating membership can come to
and express such a decision - and the group is not a legal entity. A
FAQ maintainer is a legal entity, and can hold or give away copyright.

Of course. Had they not changed the FAQ based on their contributions and
those of group regulars, it would not have changed at all (for the better,
hopefully).

No; FAQ maintainers should be listed as such, not mixed with
contributors.


However, listing contributors is silly.

Firstly, it requires keeping careful track of who contributed what, so
that their names can be removed when their contribution is replaced.

Secondly, there are too many of them to list.


However, if a clearly-identifiable part of the FAQ is in substance
entirely contributed by someone, with at most minor editing, then the
name could be given, for credit only, in that part. But no-one can have
copyright over a part of the FAQ, it is a collective work and
contributors donate their copyright rights.