Copyright to IAS?

[andrejbauer]

Why are we giving the copyright ot the Institute for Advanced Study? I am against this, unless there is some reason that IAS already has grabbed the copyright somehow.

[DanGrayson]

We aren't. We think of the corporate author, "The Univalent Foundations Program, IAS, 2013", as consisting of the members of the program, not the IAS.

[andrejbauer]

I have changed the copyright to "The Univalent Foundations Program". If it also said "Institute for Advanced Study", then as far as I am concerned the institute at least shares the copyright with us (the group of people). Or can you convince me otherwise?

[DanGrayson]

What if we give a definition of the author, as well as a name?

The idea was to distinguish this year's UF program from future UF programs.

On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Andrej Bauer notifications@github.comwrote:

I have changed the copyright to "The Univalent Foundations Program". If it also said "Institute for Advanced Study", then as far as I am concerned the institute at least shares the copyright with us (the group of people). Or can you convince me otherwise?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/HoTT/book/issues/93#issuecomment-16147195 .

[DanGrayson]

Better is to follow your original idea. Let's have Princeton replace the Institute. See d0d9242b59f434f78703875bd2ed479525a8471a

On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Daniel R. Grayson dan@math.uiuc.edu wrote:

What if we give a definition of the author, as well as a name?

The idea was to distinguish this year's UF program from future UF programs.

On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Andrej Bauer notifications@github.comwrote:

I have changed the copyright to "The Univalent Foundations Program". If it also said "Institute for Advanced Study", then as far as I am concerned the institute at least shares the copyright with us (the group of people). Or can you convince me otherwise?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/HoTT/book/issues/93#issuecomment-16147195 .

[cangiuli]

I don't think "Princeton" is better than "IAS". We aren't affiliated with Princeton University, which is what "Princeton" means to most people. If we are concerned about copyright issues then what about simply:

"The Univalent Foundations Program, 2012-13"

I don't suppose we plan on having a second Univalent Foundations Program in this calendar year :)

[awodey]

I think it has to say IAS, or better, Institute forAdvanced Study. What's the problem with that?

On Apr 9, 2013, at 10:05 PM, Carlo Angiuli notifications@github.com wrote:

I don't think "Princeton" is better than "IAS". We aren't affiliated with Princeton University, which is what "Princeton" means to most people. If we are concerned about copyright issues then what about simply:

"The Univalent Foundations Program, 2012-13"

I don't suppose we plan on having a second Univalent Foundations Program in this calendar year :)

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[DanGrayson]

Here's Andrej's remark on that, from a previous email:

"I have changed the copyright to "The Univalent Foundations Program". If it also said "Institute for Advanced Study", then as far as I am concerned the institute at least shares the copyright with us (the group of people). Or can you convince me otherwise?"

On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 10:23 PM, Steve Awodey notifications@github.comwrote:

I think it has to say IAS, or better, Institute forAdvanced Study. What's the problem with that?

On Apr 9, 2013, at 10:05 PM, Carlo Angiuli notifications@github.com wrote:

I don't think "Princeton" is better than "IAS". We aren't affiliated with Princeton University, which is what "Princeton" means to most people. If we are concerned about copyright issues then what about simply:

"The Univalent Foundations Program, 2012-13"

I don't suppose we plan on having a second Univalent Foundations Program in this calendar year :)

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/HoTT/book/issues/93#issuecomment-16151900 .

[DanGrayson]

Carlo's proposal is a sensible one. The main requirement for the name of the (corporate) author is that it be unambiguous, not that it say everything that's true.

Another possibility would be to replace the ambiguous comma by "at the", as in "The Univalent Foundations Program at the Institute for Advanced Study, 2012-13", which seems to answer both Andrej's and Steve's concerns.

On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Daniel R. Grayson dan@math.uiuc.eduwrote:

Here's Andrej's remark on that, from a previous email:

"I have changed the copyright to "The Univalent Foundations Program". If it also said "Institute for Advanced Study", then as far as I am concerned the institute at least shares the copyright with us (the group of people). Or can you convince me otherwise?"

On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 10:23 PM, Steve Awodey notifications@github.comwrote:

I think it has to say IAS, or better, Institute forAdvanced Study. What's the problem with that?

On Apr 9, 2013, at 10:05 PM, Carlo Angiuli notifications@github.com wrote:

I don't think "Princeton" is better than "IAS". We aren't affiliated with Princeton University, which is what "Princeton" means to most people. If we are concerned about copyright issues then what about simply:

"The Univalent Foundations Program, 2012-13"

I don't suppose we plan on having a second Univalent Foundations Program in this calendar year :)

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/HoTT/book/issues/93#issuecomment-16151900 .

[cangiuli]

I like that, although it's a little wordy for a cover page.

By the way, I think the wording of the author should be consistent with (not necessarily identical to) the Preface, which calls us the "2012-13 Special Year on Univalent Foundations at the Institute for Advanced Study, School of Mathematics".

[andrejbauer]

I am against mentioning IAS anywhere near the copyright, with or without "at" or a comma. The copyright belongs to the group of people who wrote the book, and I am happy to call ourselves "The Univalent Foundations Program". Surely this program extends beyond IAS or Princton, which is another reason why these should not be mentioned in the copyright. It is ok to say "IAS" on the book cover, I suppose, because that is where the book was written.

And Princeton is a town, not a university. If we say "Princeton" then it does not mean "Princeton Univeristy". But perhaps the signature in preface should say "Institute for Advanced Study, April 2013". This is more specific than "Princeton, April 2013".

[andrejbauer]

I think I should be clearer. There are four ocurrences of "the author": cover page, title page, copyright page, and preface.

I am unhappy only about the copyright page, which is the small print. There it should say only "The Univalent Foundations Program", no Princeton, no IAS. The rest I am easy about. I think the small print should not contain any hints that an institution holds the copyright, or even participates in the copyright. Copyright is for people to hold.

Actually, if IAS is able to publish books with ISBN's, perhaps we could actually make IAS the official publisher? The book would still be released under the same license, through the same channels (arXiv, homotopytypetheory.org, lulu.com). I think this would be an appropriate role for IAS. IAS has offered support without which the book would not exist, so it would be good to have IAS recognized in that role. But not copyright please.

[awodey]

On Apr 10, 2013, at 3:11 AM, Andrej Bauer notifications@github.com wrote:

I think I should be clearer. There are four ocurrences of "the author": cover page, title page, copyright page, and preface.

I am unhappy only about the copyright page, which is the small print. There it should say only "The Univalent Foundations Program", no Princeton, no IAS. The rest I am easy about. I think the small print should not contain any hints that an institution holds the copyright, or even participates in the copyright. Copyright is for people to hold.

OK, no IAS near the copyright -- but it should be on the cover and title page.

Actually, if IAS is able to publish books with ISBN's, perhaps we could actually make IAS the official publisher? The book would still be released under the same license, through the same channels (arXiv, homotopytypetheory.org, lulu.com). I think this would be an appropriate role for IAS. IAS has offered support without which the book would not exist, so it would be good to have IAS recognized in that role.

how can we find this out? Maybe there is an IAS tech report series, like at Mittag-Leffler?

But not copyright please.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[andrejbauer]

Have a look at the current title page, copyright and signature in preface. They all say IAS except for the copyright. Someone at IAS should be able to find out fairly easily if IAS can issue ISBN numbers. Probably the librarian.

[awodey]

looks good. on the title page, please put a line break after Institute .. Study (and remove the comma).

On Apr 10, 2013, at 9:28 AM, Andrej Bauer notifications@github.com wrote:

Have a look at the current title page, copyright and signature in preface. They all say IAS except for the copyright. Someone at IAS should be able to find out fairly easily if IAS can issue ISBN numbers. Probably the librarian.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[andrejbauer]

I wondered about that. Done. Do we actually need "Princeton, April 2013" on the front page? I would delete it.

[awodey]

I agree.

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 10, 2013, at 9:39 AM, Andrej Bauer notifications@github.com wrote:

I wondered about that. Done. Do we actually need "Princeton, April 2013" on the front page? I would delete it.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[DanGrayson]

I've added the year 2013 of publication to the copyright notice, in accordance with the rules explained here: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html

On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Steve Awodey notifications@github.comwrote:

I agree.

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 10, 2013, at 9:39 AM, Andrej Bauer notifications@github.com wrote:

I wondered about that. Done. Do we actually need "Princeton, April 2013" on the front page? I would delete it.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/HoTT/book/issues/93#issuecomment-16175282 .

[andrejbauer]

Thanks Dan. Any idea how to get rid of the linebreak? The copyright for the cover photo "Flames" must appear somewhere. I propose we keep it where it is, because there is no other place for it (it would be silly to have it on the cover itself).

[andrejbauer]

I think it is fine now.