merlin@hqda-ai.UUCP (02/19/87)
In article <4169@sdcrdcf.UUCP>, lwall@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Larry Wall) writes: > The ONLY way to keep someone else from copyrighting and selling > your code, or a derivative of your code, is to copyright it > yourself. Even if you go and get this "group of people together > and work on a replacement for netnews that is explicitly without > copyright", there is nothing to prevent Rick Adams from adding a > few lines and copyrighting it again. A simple question, which I'm sure will cause my inbox to overflow. What's so bad about the netnews software being sold? The 2.11 version carries a notice that it may be freely duplicated and redistributed (but not sold for profit). Suppose news 2.12 comes out, and carries a restrictive license, and a $xxx pricetag? Would any of us actually use it? You can't operate news in a vacuum, you need other sites to talk with. So the BADMeanie Company can't sell anything that (free, 2.11 sites) won't talk to. Let's suppose 2.11 was not copyrighted. BADMeanie Company tries to sell it, perhaps to MINIX users. So what? They can still get it free from any of us. If they choose to pay for it, and thereby get support and handholding from BMCo, that's their business. The only real problem I see is if BMCo subsequently tried to copyright the public-domain software. They may try, and they will succeed, in that they will be able to register the software with the Library of Congress (custodian of registered copyright works in the US). But they can't do anything with it. They can't get anything ($$$) from us in court, because they can't show that we came by a copy of their software improperly. So what's the problem with Public Domain software? -- David S. Hayes, The Merlin of Avalon PhoneNet: (202) 694-6900 ARPA: merlin%hqda-ai.uucp@brl.arpa UUCP: ...!seismo!sundc!hqda-ai!merlin