cmcmanis@sun.uucp (Chuck McManis) (11/03/86)
In article <212@sas.UUCP> toebes@sas.UUCP (John Toebes) writes : Well, lets just say he writes a lot, but to summarize : John ports Hack to the Amiga Hack gets distributed on a Fish disk and through bbs's A company in Calif, 'The Public Domain Connection' picks it up and begins to market it. John gets really irritated and flames to the world. That is the situation in a nutshell. It is situations like this that need to be reviewed now and then to let those authors out on the net what the state of the world and law really is. Therefore these comments are not really aimed at John but the writing public in general. First lets get the state of 'Public Domain' software out in it's real light. When you place a piece of software 'in the Public Domain' you relinquish *all* rights to that software. That means that any person in the world can pick up that software, market it, sell it for thousands of dollars, reap big bucks, and they don't have to give you anything in return. Why? because it is 'Public Domain'. AUTHORS PLEASE NOTE, the ONLY way you can retain rights to a work are to put the words 'Copyright (C) 1986, Your Name, All Rights Reserved' in *every* piece of source, embedded in the binaries somewhere (insert it twice, once in an obvious place and once where it is less obvious, the less obvious the better), and all over the packaging and documentation. Then and only then will you be able to retain your rights to that code, also if the words 'Public Domain' or 'this is Public Domain' appear *anywhere* in the source or executable, it does not matter if you also have a copy right notice, the 'Public Domain' takes precedence. (This is apparently 'case law' or, restated differently, the way the courts have interpreted the copyright act in the past). So beware, and only put things in the public domain that you *don't care* if someone picks up and markets without your permission. And what about your copy rights? Well if you have copyrighted the work, and all it requires are those simple words in the code, you can sue for damages, anyone who publishes, markets, or distributes your software without your permission. When you detect a violation you go down to the courthouse, register a complaint, and file a motion for an injunction. Sounds tough but it really is just paperwork. The judge will almost always sign your injunction whereupon you have to get it 'served' to the company or persons in question, whereupon they must either cease distributing your software or the judge will throw them in jail for contempt (violating an injunction). Now lets take Johns case : I don't know if he copyrighted what he did or not so we will have to leave that issue for him to clarify. If he put his work into the 'Public Domain' he does not have any basis for a complaint. Since that option would elminate the rest of this article, lets say he did indeed copyright it. The next question would become 'What was copyrighted?' Certainly it couldn't have been all of the code since Andries and co wrote that, so it must have been the Amiga specific stuff. Ok, say that he registers his complaint and goes off to pursue damages. He will have to argue that it since he gives away his software, it is immoral for someone else to make money on it. He will also have to argue why he did not put something in the Public Domain that he was under contractual pressure not to make any money from. I worry that since John specifically has refused to take money for it, it will be very difficult to prove he was 'damaged' by this other companies distribution and subsequent profit. The only hope he has is to argue that since he has retained all rights to the code he can be 'eccentric' in the eyes of the non-computer public by not letting his programs be sold. He comments : >Other companies have asked me if they could market Hack (3 so far) and the >response has always been NO! I am not the only person involved, we all >owe a lot to Jay Fenalson, Andries Brouwer, and Don Kneller. It in not >within my rights (or anyone else's) to make money marketing a collective >work in the interest of bettering the avaialable software. Just because >this company failed to check first is no excuse. As it turns out someone has a right to make money from the code, the copyright holder, unless it is Public Domain, in which case anyone can make money with it. His Options : *>1) Sue them! This can get expansive for me and them (In their case, they can use the money they are making off my work!) Would be difficult to collect damages, you could collect court costs and if your case has merit a Laywer will probably take it on a contengency basis. (As the the paren above, they can't if you have an injunction) *>2) Stop producing freely redistributable software. This is an extreme solution, but with AmigaWorld working against me it is a reasonable one. This is the most common route taken when idealistic young programmers find out about the realities of the game. Then they become older, wiser programmers and just nod their head when the young idealistic ones come up to them with visions of free quality software and goodwill to all. *>3) Ignore the situation and let them walk all over me and anyone else who is working for the betterment of the Amiga. Chalk it up to experience. Take comfort in the knowledge you gained by doing the port, and the good will it gave you in the Amiga programming community. *>4) Force them to stop selling it and make the situation so others do not attempt to do the same. This would mean enforcing your copyright, licensing a distributor, and probably making money. You should either make everything you do public domain or arrange with your employer to allow you to profit by your other work. At least in california there is a law that say's anything you do on your own time with your own equipment is yours to do what you want with it. >I strongly lean toward solution #2 - unfortunately with my employment >restrictions it means no more software on the Amiga. Hence I request >assistance on solution #4. You can only do number 4 by going to court. That will probably be more trouble than it is worth for a 'free program'. It would cost less and do more if you : A) Wrote a letter to the editor of all Amiga magazines and brought them and their readership up to date on the problem. B) Took out a small ad next to theirs that said any one could get hack for free by dialing your bullieten board. [Whew, but that got long winded.] -- --Chuck McManis uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.
bet@ecsvax.UUCP (Bennett E. Todd III) (11/06/86)
In article <220@sas.UUCP> walker@sas.UUCP (Doug Walker) writes: > [...] How about some legal eagle out there coming up with an appropriate > statment which allows distribution on a not-for-profit basis while retaining > the author's copyright? It's been done. The Free Software Foundation (whence cometh GNU; RMS's current pet project) distributes software with a fairly lengthy preamble; it asserts Copyright, then explicitly grants permission for redistribution with restrictions designed to keep anybody from abusing it. -Bennett -- Bennett Todd -- Duke Computation Center, Durham, NC 27706-7756; (919) 684-3695 UUCP: ...{decvax,seismo,philabs,ihnp4,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!duccpc!bet BITNET: DBTODD@TUCC.BITNET -or- DBTODD@TUCCVM.BITNET -or- bet@ECSVAX.BITNET terrorist, cryptography, DES, drugs, cipher, secret, decode, NSA, CIA, NRO.
net@uwmacc.UUCP (jeff kesselman) (11/10/86)
In article <2228@ecsvax.UUCP> bet@ecsvax.UUCP (Bennett E. Todd III) writes: >In article <220@sas.UUCP> walker@sas.UUCP (Doug Walker) writes: >> [...] How about some legal eagle out there coming up with an appropriate >> statment which allows distribution on a not-for-profit basis while retaining >> the author's copyright? > >It's been done. The Free Software Foundation (whence cometh GNU; RMS's >current pet project) distributes software with a fairly lengthy >preamble; it asserts Copyright, then explicitly grants permission for >redistribution with restrictions designed to keep anybody from abusing >it. > Could we prevail upon someone from FSF to post thier statement, in fill in the blank form, to save the rest of us the research time of designing one, and the expense of having a lawyer then double check it (I assume FSF has already done this) ?? I thought just occurred to me. There are a number of national freelance writer's organizations (as I've mentioned before) that exist primarily to protect their members from unscrupulous publishers and the like. Wouldn't it make sense to form such an association of freelance software authors/ PD software authors either as a seperate organization or as a sub-organization of one of these? Actually, forming such a guild might not be any more difficult than creating a new news group. Any thoughts? Jeff Kesselman ihnp4!uwvax!puff!uhura!captain (for bright mailers, uhura has a published path) "I'd be writting PD software, if I had enough time left after school to be writing anything!" me.
ccplumb@watnot.UUCP (Colin Plumb) (11/11/86)
In article <483@uwmacc.UUCP> net@uwmacc.UUCP (jeff kesselman) writes: > >Could we prevail upon someone from FSF to post thier statement, in fill in the >blank form, to save the rest of us the research time of designing one, >and the expense of having a lawyer then double check it (I assume FSF has >already done this) ?? Well, I'm not from the FSF, but I do have access to their 'General Public License', so here it is... (after the .signature. You don't have to trim anything off the end. Isn't that wonderful?) -Colin Plumb (ccplumb@watnot.UUCP) Zippy says: I am a jelly donut. I am a jelly donut. ----------- cut here ------- no .signature at end -------- cut here ----------- GNU EMACS GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Copyright (C) 1985 Richard M. Stallman Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license, but changing it is not allowed. The license agreements of most software companies keep you at the mercy of those companies. By contrast, our general public license is intended to give everyone the right to share GNU Emacs. To make sure that you get the rights we want you to have, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. Hence this license agreement. Specifically, we want to make sure that you have the right to give away copies of Emacs, that you receive source code or else can get it if you want it, that you can change Emacs or use pieces of it in new free programs, and that you know you can do these things. To make sure that everyone has such rights, we have to forbid you to deprive anyone else of these rights. For example, if you distribute copies of Emacs, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must tell them their rights. Also, for our own protection, we must make certain that everyone finds out that there is no warranty for GNU Emacs. If Emacs is modified by someone else and passed on, we want its recipients to know that what they have is not what we distributed, so that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on our reputation. Therefore we (Richard Stallman and the Free Software Fundation, Inc.) make the following terms which say what you must do to be allowed to distribute or change GNU Emacs. COPYING POLICIES 1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of GNU Emacs source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each file a valid copyright notice such as "Copyright (C) 1985 Richard M. Stallman", containing the year of last change and name of copyright holder for the file in question; keep intact the notices on all files that refer to this License Agreement and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the GNU Emacs program a copy of this License Agreement along with the program. 2. You may modify your copy or copies of GNU Emacs source code or any portion of it, and copy and distribute such modifications under the terms of Paragraph 1 above, provided that you also do the following: a) cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating who last changed such files and the date of any change; and b) cause the whole of any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is a derivative of GNU Emacs or any part thereof, to be freely distributed and licensed to all third parties on terms identical to those contained in this License Agreement (except that you may choose to grant more extensive warranty protection to third parties, at your option). c) if the modified program serves as a text editor, cause it when started running in the simplest and usual way, to print an announcement including a valid copyright notice ("Copyright (C)", the year of authorship, and all copyright owners' names), saying that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License Agreement. 3. You may copy and distribute GNU Emacs or any portion of it in compiled, executable or object code form under the terms of Paragraphs 1 and 2 above provided that you do the following: a) cause each such copy of GNU Emacs to be accompanied by the corresponding machine-readable source code; or b) cause each such copy of GNU Emacs to be accompanied by a written offer, with no time limit, to give any third party free (except for a nominal shipping charge) machine readable copy of the corresponding source code; or c) in the case of a recipient of GNU Emacs in compiled, executable or object code form (without the corresponding source code) you shall cause copies you distribute to be accompanied by a copy of the written offer of source code which you received along with the copy of GNU Emacs. 4. You may not copy, sublicense, distribute or transfer GNU Emacs except as expressly provided under this License Agreement. Any attempt otherwise to copy, sublicense, distribute or transfer GNU Emacs is void and your rights to use GNU Emacs under this License agreement shall be automatically terminated. However, parties who have received computer software programs from you with this License Agreement will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance. Your comments and suggestions about our licensing policies and our software are welcome! Please contact the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 1000 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02138, or call (617) 876-3296. NO WARRANTY BECAUSE GNU EMACS IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, WE PROVIDE ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE STATE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING, FREE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION, INC, RICHARD M. STALLMAN AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE GNU EMACS "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE GNU EMACS PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW WILL FREE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION, INC., RICHARD M. STALLMAN, AND/OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND REDISTRIBUTE GNU EMACS AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY LOST PROFITS, LOST MONIES, OR OTHER SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH PROGRAMS NOT DISTRIBUTED BY FREE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION, INC.) THE PROGRAM, EVEN IF YOU HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES, OR FOR ANY CLAIM BY ANY OTHER PARTY.
glee@cognos.UUCP (Godfrey Lee) (11/12/86)
In article <483@uwmacc.UUCP> net@uwmacc.UUCP (jeff kesselman) writes: > >I thought just occurred to me. There are a number of national freelance >writer's organizations (as I've mentioned before) that exist primarily to >protect their members from unscrupulous publishers and the like. Wouldn't >it make sense to form such an association of freelance software authors/ >PD software authors either as a seperate organization or as a sub-organization >of one of these? Actually, forming such a guild might not be any more >difficult than creating a new news group. Any thoughts? > >Jeff Kesselman This sounds like a great idea. Don't forget about us folks in Canada. -- -------------------------------------- Godfrey Lee Cognos Incorporated 3755 Riverside Drive Ottawa, Ontario CANADA K1G 3N3 (613) 738-1440 decvax!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!glee --------------------------------------