User talk:Riggsdr

Dolphin code
Do you have anything that actually says the code itself is public domain? The new article and the old one are largely identical except for the code itself. Even if the code does happen to be public domain, we shouldn't host the actual full text of the code itself on Wikipedia, just like we don't host song lyrics, poems, short atories, etc. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  02:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Response
(I appreciate your quick response; I will be away for a week starting tomorrow, so don't think I've forgotten about you!) Let me describe the situation. I am a US Submariner, and this code is well known and freely distributed in my line of work. I'll lay it out this way: (As if you didn't know) I'm new to Wikipedia, and am not as familiar to the standard codes used on this site. Your expert advice is appreciated. Riggsdr (talk) 21:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It generated by an officer in the Canadian or UK Submarine Force, and could concieveably be covered by the Crown Copyright, which may not have expired, however:
 * 2) It was not originally intended to be a copyrighted work. To an "insider" it is intended as a humorous mockery of Classified communications manuals (but is not classified, as demonstrated by the fact that I'm talking to you about it on the internet).
 * 3) It is freely distributed among submarine forces without references to any originator or copyright.
 * 4) The name of the original author has been "lost to the ages." Heck, I'm a Submariner and I can't tell you who invented it.
 * 5) Other than unofficial, personal webpages, there are no references to it on the internet, to my knowledge.
 * 6) It is referenced by another Wikipedia page, Royal Navy Submarine Service

Complicated...
If authorship is unknown, it's going to be pretty tough to determine whether it's public domain or not. I make no claim to be an expert in copyright law, Canadian or otherwise, especially not as it relates to military service. However, it would seem to me logical that material created by military persons on their off-duty time would still be covered under their own personal copyright, not the government's. It would be possible for someone, or the estate of someone, to claim copyright even after the material itself has been widely anonymously distributed, as has certainly happened before, such as the Rainbow Bridge (pets) and Footprints (poem), each of which actually has several different claimants.

I apologise if all this sounds awfully lawyer-y, but we do take copyright seriously because we have to. Wikipedia is a nonprofit which relies on donations, and even a single major copyright case, even one in which we were eventually victorious, could hurt us signifantly.

That said, if you want to write an article about the code, which doesn't contain the text of the code itself, then it wouldn't be deleted as a copyright violation. The material would still need to be verifiable though, as in supported by reliable sources, which might be a problem if the basic facts (such as authorship) aren't known. Another possibility would be to mention it in Military humor or another similar article. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Eureka!
After some "in depth" web-serching, I have located the original author of the code! Keith Nesbitt, accredited by and. I have had some personal correspondence with him (thankfully, not dead) and he gave me permission to use the code in the public domain.

So now the question is, how do I turn e-mail permission from the accredited, self-proclaimed author into permission on wikipedia? Riggsdr (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * First off, I think it's great that you took the time to track down the author, and even more impressive that the author was willing to release it as public-domain. If you want to upload the source text, please put it on Wikisource, you can even use your Wikipedia username and password, I believe. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliment! Will do as soon as I get access to a scanner. Riggsdr (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)