[docs] unsure about (c)

[scott hutinger <s-...@wiu.edu>]

I'm a bit uncertain about the symbol (c) that years ago was a needed 
include (could be a past artifact).

But Jean has had some (c) and some ! not (c) in some information.  In 
fact, I don't see the symbol (c) in the url's that Jean had shown.  I 
left the Copyright page the way it was.  Does the symbol mean anything 
anymore?  It was years ago (c), or the correct symbol was needed. (?)

1)  Does the copyright page read correct?
2)  Not related, but should the version number be in all headers, and 
not just the table of contents?  I wasn't certain about this, but I know 
I get a mess of papers that might not have a device to hook them 
together (staple), so might like the version in the header?

thanks,
scott

Re: [docs] unsure about (c)

[Laura Stewart <sc...@gmail.com>]

On 1/26/07, Jean T. Anderson <jt...@bristowhill.com> wrote:
> scott hutinger wrote:
> > 2)  Not related, but should the version number be in all headers, and
> > not just the table of contents?  I wasn't certain about this, but I know
> > I get a mess of papers that might not have a device to hook them
> > together (staple), so might like the version in the header?
>
> I don't have a strong opinion about this.
>
>  -jean

I don't see the version number in the TOC.  What I see is the word
"Copyright" in the header (in both the alpha and 10.2 release books).

To me what makes more sense is to have a footer that has the name of
the book and version number, rather than something in the header.

-- 
Laura Stewart

Re: [docs] unsure about (c)

[scott hutinger <s-...@wiu.edu>]

OK, 1989 sounds about correct, thank you for the update of information.  
I agree that the word should suffice...

The unfolding copyright information, since it's unfolding; isn't the 
current information correct?  If the current copyright page isn't 
correct, let me know exactly what is needed.  I am guessing that it's 
correct until everything is unfolded.

I'll leave everything the way it is, unless someone has an opinion about 
things like version number in all header pages.

Thanks much for all the (c) information.
scott

Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> scott hutinger wrote:
>   
>> I'm a bit uncertain about the symbol (c) that years ago was a needed
>> include (could be a past artifact).
>>
>> But Jean has had some (c) and some ! not (c) in some information.  In
>> fact, I don't see the symbol (c) in the url's that Jean had shown.  I
>> left the Copyright page the way it was.  Does the symbol mean anything
>> anymore?  It was years ago (c), or the correct symbol was needed. (?)
>>     
>
> To (c) or not to (c), that is the question ....
>
> IANAL but for U.S. copyrights at
> http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#fnv I found this:
>
> "The notice for visually perceptible copies should contain all the
> following three elements:
>
> 1. The symbol © (the letter C in a circle), or the word “Copyright,” or
> the abbreviation “Copr.”; and
>
> 2. The year of first publication of the work. In the case of
> compilations or derivative works incorporating previously published
> material, the year date of first publication of the compilation or
> derivative work is sufficient. The year date may be omitted where a
> pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work, with accompanying textual
> matter, if any, is reproduced in or on greeting cards, postcards,
> stationery, jewelry, dolls, toys, or any useful article; and
>
> 3. The name of the owner of copyright in the work, or an abbreviation by
> which the name can be recognized, or a generally known alternative
> designation of the owner."
>
> >From this, it would seem that the word "Copyright" by itself is
> sufficient and it does not require the letter C in a circle or (c).
>
> I bet there's some interesting history somewhere of that (c).
> http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#noc mentions the change in
> U.S. law in 1989, after which notice was no longer required.
>
>   
>> 1)  Does the copyright page read correct?
>>     
>
> The copyright page in the Derby docs currently is not correct -- see the
> unfolding discussion in DERBY-2237 as together we work out how it should
> read.
>
>   
>> 2)  Not related, but should the version number be in all headers, and
>> not just the table of contents?  I wasn't certain about this, but I know
>> I get a mess of papers that might not have a device to hook them
>> together (staple), so might like the version in the header?
>>     
>
> I don't have a strong opinion about this.
>
>  -jean
>   

Re: [docs] unsure about (c)

["Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>]

scott hutinger wrote:
> I'm a bit uncertain about the symbol (c) that years ago was a needed
> include (could be a past artifact).
> 
> But Jean has had some (c) and some ! not (c) in some information.  In
> fact, I don't see the symbol (c) in the url's that Jean had shown.  I
> left the Copyright page the way it was.  Does the symbol mean anything
> anymore?  It was years ago (c), or the correct symbol was needed. (?)

To (c) or not to (c), that is the question ....

IANAL but for U.S. copyrights at
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#fnv I found this:

"The notice for visually perceptible copies should contain all the
following three elements:

1. The symbol © (the letter C in a circle), or the word “Copyright,” or
the abbreviation “Copr.”; and

2. The year of first publication of the work. In the case of
compilations or derivative works incorporating previously published
material, the year date of first publication of the compilation or
derivative work is sufficient. The year date may be omitted where a
pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work, with accompanying textual
matter, if any, is reproduced in or on greeting cards, postcards,
stationery, jewelry, dolls, toys, or any useful article; and

3. The name of the owner of copyright in the work, or an abbreviation by
which the name can be recognized, or a generally known alternative
designation of the owner."

>From this, it would seem that the word "Copyright" by itself is
sufficient and it does not require the letter C in a circle or (c).

I bet there's some interesting history somewhere of that (c).
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#noc mentions the change in
U.S. law in 1989, after which notice was no longer required.

> 1)  Does the copyright page read correct?

The copyright page in the Derby docs currently is not correct -- see the
unfolding discussion in DERBY-2237 as together we work out how it should
read.

> 2)  Not related, but should the version number be in all headers, and
> not just the table of contents?  I wasn't certain about this, but I know
> I get a mess of papers that might not have a device to hook them
> together (staple), so might like the version in the header?

I don't have a strong opinion about this.

 -jean