From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.8 required=5.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_POST, HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_NEUTRAL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7AB1BBAF for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2009 14:57:32 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmQDAIO9tEnRVd2Cm2dsb2JhbACCIDGSHEEBAQEICRMRrRqBB40cAQMBA4QCBg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,329,1233529200"; d="scan'208";a="24060863" Received: from mail-qy0-f130.google.com ([209.85.221.130]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 09 Mar 2009 14:57:31 +0100 Received: by qyk36 with SMTP id 36so1004564qyk.1 for ; Mon, 09 Mar 2009 06:57:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=syBN/39GiLIhBopYTWhCfvM21Uhi3Xhvf4bhloOxqQE=; b=lynDESBJdTLLQ2sRZOfrYA6/O5cAZf4O6IYCzyYQ9iithXcJMposADT3tvcDtbaMJf IBDXCyH8InqUUXX4uH+YU7ZzmeiEa2nzmrMsUWHMmPG5kohdhZLXUXllKWDA3JnkWVlW jHfrfaeG8TUATxOQeXBKffOA2s4N9vhpZr3bM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=bG2in4wQ/HTVx5T2zz5rw7LCNuplpBi1779akGKHE81BuXvCrIfxI3WJ6Jwrfc/80R 5vjLFMeRoI6CwAHqvzn/MHl7GuUQSbvS+xXB9VNT7PtxoKc+7QcRRQr3oVXwj6BLikq+ I9eNpjK73MZNpCDQRhM6/ZAxUkl5t181SpCHk= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.2.138 with SMTP id 10mr7143567qaj.299.1236607051028; Mon, 09 Mar 2009 06:57:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <200903080815.n288FigF019105@alumnus.caltech.edu> References: <200903080815.n288FigF019105@alumnus.caltech.edu> Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 08:57:30 -0500 Message-ID: <2a1a1a0c0903090657k45caf398m9e16bb2ff619de7b@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Tim Rentsch & The Abscissa Book From: Mike Lin To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015175cdadc00dad90464b004a3 X-Spam: no; 0.01; 2009:98 disputes:98 chaff:98 2009:98 disputes:98 chaff:98 wrote:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 argument:02 argument:02 clarify:04 clarify:04 caltech:05 caltech:05 --0015175cdadc00dad90464b004a3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 3:15 AM, Tim Rentsch wrote: > > I > have, to the best of my understanding, a legal right to use material > from the joint work in the way that I'm using it. While I am fully aware that a public argument over this among poorly-informed non-lawyers is possibly counterproductive and certainly unhelpful, now I'm curious :) Many people involved with OSS are familiar with the rough contours of copyright law as it applies to "derivative works", but perhaps less familiar with how it applies in cases of disputes between co-authors (if that is how you are framing the situation). So to make your case "in the court of public opinion", I think the above statement is what really needs a detailed justification. All the other issues raised in the recent lengthy missives from both parties are chaff by comparison. On a superficial scan of its contents, one might conclude that Tim's letter to your lawyer may have been written in implied confidence, and if that was the case then an outside observer might find it somewhat distasteful to post it like this. Could your perhaps clarify the circumstances of that, as well? Mike Lin --0015175cdadc00dad90464b004a3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 3:15 AM, Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:

=A0I
have, to the best of my understanding, a legal right to use material
from the joint work in the way that I'm using it.
While I am fully aware that a public argument over this among p= oorly-informed non-lawyers is possibly counterproductive and certainly unhe= lpful, now I'm curious :) Many people involved with OSS are familiar wi= th the rough contours of copyright law as it applies to "derivative wo= rks", but perhaps less familiar with how it applies in cases of disput= es between co-authors (if that is how you are framing the situation). So to= make your case "in the court of public opinion", I think the abo= ve statement is what really needs a detailed justification. All the other i= ssues raised in the recent lengthy missives from both parties are chaff by = comparison.

On a superficial scan of its contents, one might = conclude that Tim's letter to your lawyer may have been written in impl= ied confidence, and if that was the case then an outside observer might fin= d it somewhat distasteful to post it like this. Could your perhaps clarify = the circumstances of that, as well?

=A0Mike Lin
--0015175cdadc00dad90464b004a3--