Talk:An Open Letter to Hobbyists/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
The letter by Gates was published for the first time in Computer Notes and then republished in other hobby computer magazines. For better sources see: http://www.islandnet.com/~kpolsson/comphist/comp1976.htm
Should the text be set out slightly, not itallics, but perhaps with a different font or background? F
- I don't know about that, but what concerns me is that it has the whiff of a source text, for which Wikipedia is not a repository of. Respectfully -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 21:55 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I replaced it with an external link. :) Martin
Obscure title. I was looking for model railroad information. Wetman 04:47, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I would argue that my revision actually describes the text and motivation of the letter and the arguments it contains. All previous versions just briefly touch on the letter, then proceed into pure editorialism.
My text describes what the letter's *author* believes, not me. Previous versions all reflect what the editors themselves believe.
((I've added a sentence relating the importance of the letter to the open source movement, and a reference: both viewpoints tend to see it as somewhat significant.))
What gives Wikipedia the right to publish the letter in its entirety? As far as I know, Gates still holds the copyright on this document.
Not that I don't like having the text here. But Wikipedia has always taken a high road when it comes to copyright. Phiwum 10:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think the fact that it's an "Open letter to Hobbyists" and even adressed as such rather defeats any idea that the author would, or even could, withhold permission to reproduce! By its very nature the author placed this document in the public domain when he wrote it. Tim
- Absolutely not. Calling something an open letter does not mean putting it in the public domain. At least, I've never seen this claim anywhere.
- I repeat myself: this entry seems to contain a flagrant copyright violation—one with very little potential for damages, admittedly. But I don't think that an open letter is automatically public domain. If you have any clear citations that would persuade me otherwise, please share them. Phiwum 10:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- I think the solution is clear. Someone should email Mr. Gates and ask for his written permission to publish the full text of the letter. Dave Slinn 23:19 June 12, 2006 UTC
- An open letter is something that's addressed to an individual, but also distributed to media and other outlets for the express purpose of reproduction and mass-consumption. Heck, even the wikipedia entry on them says as much, as do others.
- It was *intended* for reproduction. That's the point of an *open letter*. Removing the text was silly if done on copyright grounds. Tim
- I think the solution is clear. Someone should email Mr. Gates and ask for his written permission to publish the full text of the letter. Dave Slinn 23:19 June 12, 2006 UTC
- I think the fact that it's an "Open letter to Hobbyists" and even adressed as such rather defeats any idea that the author would, or even could, withhold permission to reproduce! By its very nature the author placed this document in the public domain when he wrote it. Tim
I have removed the text. Conscious 10:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- It seems to me that this text falls under 'Fair use in|Open Letter to Hobbyists' or 'Promotional' or 'Publicity Photos'. While it is certainly still under Gates' copyright, by making it an open letter, he implicitly gave permission to redistribute and cite. Dgies 04:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Either he gave explicit or implicit permission to do so. The fact that he called it an "open letter" doesn't seem to grant explicit permission to redistribute it. I don't know of any case that establishes implicit permission to redistribute open letters, but I'm not a lawyer and I'm not claiming rights that aren't obvious. If you can defend this claim, please do. Phiwum 00:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well, 'IANAL', but the title "Open Letter" suggests to me that the author gives permission for anyone to read or share it in unmodified form. It seems to me that in the absence of obvious copyright infringement, the implication of permission, and the unlikelyness that inclusion would cause any monetary damage to the copyright holder, we should give inclusion the benefit of the doubt. Dgies 06:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia errs on the side of caution on these matters. The fact that it's called an open letter does not satisfy the conditions at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, namely
- Only an explicit statement that the material is in the public domain, licensed with the GFDL, or is otherwise compatible with the GFDL, makes material reusable under current policy, unless it is inherently in the public domain due to age or source.
- Including the letter in its entirety is a copyright violation. Phiwum 13:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- No, it would be a legal citation. --mms 11:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Your response is too curt. What is the argument that reprinting the letter in its entirety is not a violation of both copyright and Wikipedia policy? Fair use grants excerpt rights, but not the right to reproduce the entire work. Phiwum 15:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- The letter was intended to be distributed.
- The work already has been published before.
- We would also be citing the entire letter.
- No right always forbids you to reproduce the entire work. Please forgive me my cynicism but I guess Bill would be very amused if he would notice how we are scared to cite his open letter. It is ridiculous. --mms 20:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- A belated response.
- The fact that the letter was intended to be distributed is irrelevant. It was distributed as a paid advertisement. Such advertisements enjoy the same copyright privileges as other works.
- The fact that the letter was published previously is irrelevant. New York Times articles are also published previously (and also are intended for distribution) but we cannot reproduce them in toto here—not even if another site has done just that. Copyright is not forfeit by failing to defend previous infringements.
- Reproducing a copyrighted work in its entirety is not generally a fair use right. Otherwise, why not print copies of the Da Vinci Code with quotation marks around the "quoted" text?
- Perhaps Gates doesn't care if we quote his letter in full, but we should not be mind readers. Unless explicit permission is granted (in a form consistent with WP policy), we can't quote the letter in full. We can quote relatively small excerpts (as allowed by fair use). Phiwum 16:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- A belated response.
- Your response is too curt. What is the argument that reprinting the letter in its entirety is not a violation of both copyright and Wikipedia policy? Fair use grants excerpt rights, but not the right to reproduce the entire work. Phiwum 15:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- No, it would be a legal citation. --mms 11:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia errs on the side of caution on these matters. The fact that it's called an open letter does not satisfy the conditions at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, namely
- Well, 'IANAL', but the title "Open Letter" suggests to me that the author gives permission for anyone to read or share it in unmodified form. It seems to me that in the absence of obvious copyright infringement, the implication of permission, and the unlikelyness that inclusion would cause any monetary damage to the copyright holder, we should give inclusion the benefit of the doubt. Dgies 06:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Either he gave explicit or implicit permission to do so. The fact that he called it an "open letter" doesn't seem to grant explicit permission to redistribute it. I don't know of any case that establishes implicit permission to redistribute open letters, but I'm not a lawyer and I'm not claiming rights that aren't obvious. If you can defend this claim, please do. Phiwum 00:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
It was not an advertisement; it was a letter to the editor of every electronics hobbyist magazine. The main target of the letter was the Homebrew Computer Club and they published an exact copy of his letter in their public domain newsletter. Three other magazines also published the letter to the editor. See the "Public domain copy of the letter" section below. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I thought Markoff was discredited for what he did in relation to the Kevin Mitnick case? In my opinion he should not be cited as a source to accuse others of copyright infringement. --204.42.21.52 23:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- No idea what he did in the Mitnick case, but I can't imagine it's relevant to this article. Phiwum 02:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Great with souce, but the guy that host that JPEG file could have created it himself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.213.91.94 (talk) 07:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
- Are you suggesting that there was no "open letter" published by Bill Gates? Sorry, but there is no dispute about this claim. The letter was published and it is not too difficult to verify this fact. (There's a lot said about Gates which seems to be plain false — for instance, there is no reliable verification of the "640K" claim — but the open letter is not controversial at all.) Phiwum 11:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Bill Gates sent the letter to the Homebrew Computer Club and an exact copy it was printed in the January 1976 issue of the Homebrew Computer Club Newsletter. The newsletters were printed without a copyright notice and are in the public domain.
- Interesting. In 1976, the U.S. was not, of course, a Berne Convention signatory and so, for all that I know, anything published without a copyright notice is (as you say) in the public domain. Therefore, if the newsletters had no notice, then the newsletters themselves are in the public domain.
- If all that you say is true, then I withdraw my earlier comments. Seems to me like you've provided the necessary argument that the Open Letter is in the public domain. Thanks! Phiwum (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
When a person sends a letter to the editor of a newspaper or magazine it is assumed it will be printed under the copyright of that publication. The author has the right to send the letter to multiple publications and each can print it. Bill Gates did just that. In addition to Homebrew Computer Club Newsletter, the letter was printed in the February 1976 issue of Computer Notes, the March 1976 issue of People's Computer Company, and the May 1976 issue of Radio Electronics. It is apparent from reading the letter that Mr. Gates wanted it published and he did not include a copyright notice. Since he distributed the letter without a copyright notice before 1978, the letter is in public domain. Even if Mr. Gates had a valid copyright on the letter he gave the Homebrew Computer Club Newsletter permission to reprint it.
Computer Notes and Radio Electronics are under copyright so they would require a non-free content (fair use) rationale to be used in Wikipedia. The Homebrew Computer Club Newsletter was published as public domain so it can be used in Wikipedia.
I had added a copy of the letter to the article. Image:Bill Gates Letter to Hobbyists.jpg
I was a member of the Homebrew Computer Club and purchased a copy of Altair BASIC. I still have the paper tape and receipt.-- SWTPC6800 (talk) 19:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
A search of BYTE magazine's Letters sections shows that BYTE did not publish this letter. In the July 1976 issue (page 90) they published a page long response from a reader about the letter. The letter covers several methods of making a profit on software. It also gives an additional magazine the Open Letter was in, PCC (People's Computer Company) March-April 1976 (page24).
Popular Electronics only printed letters about articles in their magazine. Bill Gates did manage to show up in the Letters section in March 1976 issue (page 8).
Credit Where Credit Is Due
"Programming the Altair 680" (December 1975) was erroneously bylined by Paul Van Baalen and me. The credit for writing this article rightly belongs to William H. Gates.--H. Edward Roberts, Albuquerque, N.M.
The article asserts that the copying that took place was unauthorized and therefore infringement. Is that true? When did copying software become copying of copyrighted works in the US?--213.93.234.219 (talk) 12:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- 1975 by intent of Congress (Rep. No. 473, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 54), and 1985 in court (Whelan v. Jaslow). In any case, the point isn't whether there was infringement going on, but rather that Gates said there was. RossPatterson (talk) 00:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
This article looks to meet the B class criteria, and I've given it High importance, though I'm not sure if it should just be Mid importance. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand how the closing paragraph about Gates' interest in APL relates to the rest of the article. Could someone either rewrite it to tie it in better, or remove it? Thanks! Luvcraft (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Software did have copyright protection in 1975/1976 so I am reverting this edit Here is a reference on software copyrights.
- Keeffe, Arthur John (July 1976). "Protecting Software: Is It Worth All the Trouble?". ABA Journal. 62. American Bar Association: pp. 906–907. ISSN 0747-0088.
{{cite journal}}:|pages=has extra text (help); Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Open Letter to Hobbyists. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
- Attempted to fix sourcing for http://startup.nmnaturalhistory.org/gallery/notesViewer.php?ii=75_10&p=13
- Attempted to fix sourcing for http://startup.nmnaturalhistory.org/gallery/notesViewer.php?ii=75_7
- Attempted to fix sourcing for http://startup.nmnaturalhistory.org/gallery/notesViewer.php?ii=75_10&p=3
- Attempted to fix sourcing for http://startup.nmnaturalhistory.org/gallery/notesViewer.php?ii=75_9&p=2
- Attempted to fix sourcing for http://startup.nmnaturalhistory.org/gallery/notesViewer.php?ii=76_3&p=4
- Attempted to fix sourcing for http://startup.nmnaturalhistory.org/gallery/notesViewer.php?ii=76_2&p=3
- Attempted to fix sourcing for http://startup.nmnaturalhistory.org/gallery/notesViewer.php?ii=76_4&p=5
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
