Re: TECO, RMS, Gosling, Mocklisp

On Aug 12, 6:07 pm, Kent M Pitman <pit...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Incidentally, as to the material question of denying attribution, I
want to make just a couple of remarks. The original remark I made,
WHICH TURNED OUT TO BE FACTUALLY IN ERROR AND WHICH I'VE CORRECTED ...

To recap, this thread concerns infringement of RMS' right to
attribution for the idea to bind keystrokes to TECO macros, as it
affects his legacy as author in the medley of ideas integral to EMACS.
On 12 August May 2007, Kent Pitman retracted his statement of 20 May
2007 misattributing the aforementioned idea to Guy Steele, conceding
that he was factually in error. Readers should note that unless
expressly stated otherwise, my posts to this thread are my own
personal views and do not represent those of RMS.

Mr. Pitman appears to have misread my message of 10 August, which
might not have been sufficiently clear. My identification of the issue
at stake as being the right of attribution does not rely on the moral
rights doctrine enshrined in the Berne Convention. Infringement of the
right of attribution provides a cause of action not exclusive to
copyright law, or indeed to the domain of so-called intellectual
property law. The fact of this nonexclusivity is evident in the
decision of the US Congress to accede to the Berne Convention without
explicitly providing for the moral rights doctrine within the US
copyright code (1988). Congress recognized that protections for moral
rights were sufficiently addressed by statutory and common-law
provisions for libel, defamation, misrepresentation and so on. Remedy
for infringement of an author's right to attribution, whether of
ideas, or of the copyrighted expression of ideas, would accordingly
lie in these latter-mentioned statutory and common-law provisions.

The US Congress specifically noted such provisions citing, inter alia,
section 43 (a) of the Lanham Act (U.S. Code Title 15, Section 1125 (a)
(1)(A), which prior to Dastar Corp. v Twentieth Century Fox Film
Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (2003) was often used in claims protecting the
right of attribution:

"Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or
any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name,
symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false
designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or
false or misleading representation of fact, which ... is likely to
cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the
affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another
person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her
goods, services ..."

My reference to the Berne Convention evidently sought not to infer
remedy for the infringement in question as lying in copyright law, but
to associate an author's right of attribution with morality. Copyright
does not protect ideas themselves, but the expression of ideas in some
tangible form. In referring to the "appropriately termed" moral rights
doctrine of the Berne Convention (which prescribes the right to
attribution) I sought only to underscore that moral values inhere in
the obligation to recognize an author's right of attribution, as
infringement may cause him to suffer injury to his honour and
reputation, and that this fact enjoys global recognition.

I too have high regard for Mr. Pitman's contributions of time and
expertise to Lisp education and to CLL in particular. As project
editor of X3J13, which drew up the ANSI Common Lisp Standard, his guru-
leadership status in the Lisp Community is firmly established. Those
who are privileged to assume the mantle of leadership, however, also
incur additional obligations and accordingly bear the greatest
responsibility for actions that will impact the communities they
influence.

With regard to Pitman's reference to possibilities of invoking "heavy-
weight legal alternative[s]" I have no locus standi nor am I an agent
of RMS, whose opinion of my posts to this thread further to that of 28
July 2007 is that I am belabouring the issue. There is therefore no
intent to roll out "heavy-duty legal machinery", nor do I propose to
dissect the legal argument further. Having succeeded in making the
above-mentioned points, until I become as proficient in Lisp as Mr.
Pitman is, I can ill afford the time to indulge in uneventful
discourses in law - and of course should I embark on such a course,
there is always the possibility that the thread might be hijacked to
comp.law. :-)


Now to get back to those dicey nested backquotes ....

agthompson

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: TECO, RMS, Gosling, Mocklisp
    ... at stake as being the right of attribution does not rely on the moral ... Infringement of the ... copyright law, or indeed to the domain of so-called intellectual ... expertise to Lisp education and to CLL in particular. ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re:_COPYRIGHT_LAW:_WAS_Re:_The_Longesp=E9e_parentage.?= =?ISO-8859-1?
    ... scholarly ideas without attribution, which is an issue of scholarly ... in spite of your continued harping on copyright law. ... TAF: No, you are misapplying copyright law to complaints involving research ... indicative of your scholarship, well, it speaks for itself. ...
    (soc.genealogy.medieval)
  • Re: Seeking blurbs
    ... > what it is so I can include it in the attribution. ... As a new Lisper, I have found PCL to be very helpful, so I thought I'd ... " While learning Lisp, one is often refered to the CL HyperSpec if they ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: PRS and Festivals
    ... >>> All this stuff has been published in the United States where copyright law ... this attribution thing ... Prev by Date: ...
    (uk.music.folk)