henry@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (10/15/86)
In article <8610141158.aa06719@SEM.BRL.ARPA> ASPDMM@UOFT01.BITNET writes: > >Would it be fair for you to >sell me a copy of software you got free from PD? I don't know if it's fair; the important question to ask is "Is it legal?" Probably. >Ostensibly, the reason Joe Programmer made his >software PD was that he wanted it to be available at no cost >to anyone who wanted it. Any attempt to sell it would >defeat Joe's intention, no? Only if Joe Programmer stops distributing his software when someone else begins selling it. If Retailer A is selling a product I can get free (with no strings attached) from Dealer B that B created, does B lose anything? His software is still free; folks who don't want to pay for the turnip twaddler can show up on his doorstep and he'll give it to them at no charge. If Joe Programmer wanted to insure that his program were distributed at no charge to everyone then he SHOULDN'T put it in the Public Domain. Public Domain means just that: ANYONE can do ANYTHING with it. >Therefore if you remove >his header and place your own name on the pgm, you have >deprived him of that right. Note that a copyright is not >simply the right to SELL software. If it's yours you can >sell it, give it away, or whatever. If I remove the header from Joe Programmer's work and put my own name on the program, it seems clear to me that I have STOLEN Joe's work. There may be a variety of fancy terms which describe what I've done, but I have essentially STOLEN his work. If software is PUBLIC DOMAIN then who does it belong to? It certainly does not "belong" to the author, since he has placed the work in the public domain. If Joe wants to exercise control over how his work is used and/or distributed the author should copyright his work, and he should put conditions on its redistribution. An excellent example of such a copyright is the GNU General License, which is distributed with every piece of Project GNU software. The most obvious lesson to learn here is COVER YOUR AXX! -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Henry Mensch | XXXXXXXXX XXXXXX | XXX/XXXXXXX XXXXXX henry@athena.mit.edu ..!mit-eddie!mit-athena!henry
mcb@styx.UUCP ("Michael C. Berch") (10/15/86)
> Consider the alternative to the question you asked > what would happen if people were allowed to use PD software > for public or corporate gain? Would it be fair for you to > sell me a copy of software you got free from PD? Should > REARS CO. be allowed to develop and sell packages based on > PD software? Ostensibly, the reason Joe Programmer made his > software PD was that he wanted it to be available at no cost > to anyone who wanted it. Any attempt to sell it would > defeat Joe's intention, no? I believe that many people do not understand the true meaning of "public domain" with respect to intellectual properties. Under US copyright law, the creator of an intellectual property is vested with a "bundle of exclusive rights" that are defined by the copyright statute. These include, among other things, the right to make and sell copies, control derivative works, and the right to license these privileges or to assign the rights themselves. This applies to all works subject to the copyright law, including literary works, sound recordings, motion pictures, and computer software. When the creator of a work publishes it with notice of copyright, the bundle of exclusive rights is preserved, and he may parcel them out as he wishes. But if he publishes it without a copyright notice, or states that the work is in the public domain, the bundle of rights is irrevocably lost. [Yeah, there are some exceptions to this, but they're not important here.] This means that anyone may copy, sell, distribute, or otherwise exploit the work for commercial or personal gain, with just two exceptions: 1) You may not pass off the work as your own. This is based on fraud law rather than copyright law. 2) You may not copyright the work in your own name. The copyright law provides that only the creator of the work may do so. Thus software authors wishing to retain any control over their software after it leaves their hands must assert copyright rather than placing their work in the public domain. It is perfectly reasonable to place a copyright notice on a work and state that it is freely available; it is not reasonable to state that a work is in the public domain and attempt to place restrictions on dissemination. Michael C. Berch ARPA: mcb@lll-tis-b.ARPA (down temporarily) UUCP: {ihnp4,dual,sun}!lll-lcc!styx!mcb ...!lll-crg!styx!mcb
drears@ARDEC.ARPA ("1LT Dennis G. Rears", FSAC) (10/15/86)
>=Michael C. Berch > > >I believe that many people do not understand the true meaning of >"public domain" with respect to intellectual properties. Under US >copyright law, the creator of an intellectual property is vested with >a "bundle of exclusive rights" that are defined by the copyright statute. >These include, among other things, the right to make and sell copies, >control derivative works, and the right to license these privileges or >to assign the rights themselves. This applies to all works subject to >the copyright law, including literary works, sound recordings, motion >pictures, and computer software. > Agreed! >When the creator of a work publishes it with notice of copyright, the >bundle of exclusive rights is preserved, and he may parcel them out as >he wishes. But if he publishes it without a copyright notice, or >states that the work is in the public domain, the bundle of rights is >irrevocably lost. [Yeah, there are some exceptions to this, but >they're not important here.] This means that anyone may copy, sell, >distribute, or otherwise exploit the work for commercial or personal gain, >with just two exceptions: > >1) You may not pass off the work as your own. This is based on fraud >law rather than copyright law. > I not too sure about this. First I believe civil charges would be the way to go on this as opposed to criminal fraud charges. On fraud charges you would have to prove the seller is changing the name of the author to affect sales therefore commiting fraud upon the buyer. There is no fraud commited against the orginal author. >2) You may not copyright the work in your own name. The copyright law >provides that only the creator of the work may do so. Correct. However clever persons have been able to print books, music, and other public domain stuff and a copyright notice inserted in the front. What they are doing is copyrighting the format and not the actual prose. Joe Average Citizen does not know the difference nor care. This is one way of getting around this restriction. Actually the law is you can't copyright anything in the public domain. I can actually copyright something I did not create when I obtain the rights from the creator. The songs of the Beatles are an example of this. McCartney and Lennon never copyrighted their songs it was done by Northern Songs. Nothern songs were not assigned the copyrights they created the copyrights. > >Thus software authors wishing to retain any control over their >software after it leaves their hands must assert copyright rather than >placing their work in the public domain. It is perfectly reasonable to >place a copyright notice on a work and state that it is freely available; >it is not reasonable to state that a work is in the public domain and >attempt to place restrictions on dissemination. Agreed. > >Michael C. Berch >ARPA: mcb@lll-tis-b.ARPA (down temporarily) >UUCP: {ihnp4,dual,sun}!lll-lcc!styx!mcb > ...!lll-crg!styx!mcb Dennis