- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 15:35:33 -0700
- To: Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org, PSIG <member-psig@w3.org>
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote: >> The fact that W3C claims a copyright on the document does add a whole >> lot of explicit restrictions though, right? Specifically, it adds >> basically limits all forms of copying except the ones afforded by fair >> use. > > Since when is the presence of a copyright notice the only proof needed that > some aspects of a work are actually copyrightable or copyrighted? Ah, I think I see what you are saying. Yes, putting a copyright notice is not proof that a work is copyright*able* or copyright*ed*. However I don't see how that is relevant to this discussion as I think it is undisputed that the documents discussed here are in fact copyrightable as well as copyrighted by W3C. / Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 23 March 2011 22:37:01 UTC