Fine by me Peter. Actually as copyright holder you could do this without the
amendment on your own site. I'm not remotely interested in keeping my paws
on the material, I just want to make sure folk realise that if they post in
reply to a response, they are giving Salt permission to publish it on its
web site. Many thanks for seeking clarification. Do please have a go. (I'll
keep the lawyers posted . . . ;-)
Best as ever
C
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Howard" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 8:04 PM
Subject: Re: NEW POETRYETC PROJECT: PHYSICAL INSIGHTS
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Chris Hamilton-Emery wrote...
>
> >Contributions are copyright the author. But Salt will have exclusive
licence
> >to serve the material on its website.
>
> If I'm reading this right, it would mean that if I posted something on
> this topic, although I'd have copyright, I wouldn't be allowed to
> reproduce the material on my own website, if I wanted to. I'm not sure
> I'm happy with that.
>
> You wouldn't care to change that to "non-exclusive licence" would you?
> What is the advantage of requiring exclusivity?
>
> Regards,
> --
> Peter
>
> http://www.hphoward.demon.co.uk/poetry/
|