dick@slvblc.UUCP (Dick Flanagan) (03/16/88)
In article <2963@pbhyf.UUCP> che@pbhyf.UUCP (Mitch Che) writes: > I can choose to distribute material that I have copyrighted in the public > domain. I do not have to give up "copyrights" (so to speak) to place > something in the public domain. [...] a lot of authors of public domain > and shared software . . . ain't about to give up their copyrights. A totally nonsensical posting. I am continually amazed at the level of ignorance (usually accompanied by an equal measure of arrogance) exhibited by some people on the copyright vs. public domain issue. I will be as brief as I can so as not to tax some attention spans. "Copyrights" and "Public Domain" are mutually exclusive! ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ "Copyright" means I have a legal right to exercise some level of control over a copyrightable work, and I am excercising some or all of that right. "Public Domain" means NO ONE has a legal right to exercise ANY level of control over an otherwise copyrightable work. It is free, public property! If I give everyone the right to copy, distribute, and use my copyrighted work, I have NOT placed it in the Public Domain, nor have I given up my copyright. I have mearly relinquished some of my rights under the copyright, while retaining all others. Please do not confuse Public Domain with publically-available-for- unlimited-distribution-and-use-at-no-or-minimal-charge. The first is a legal concept. The second is a social/marketing concept. Dick -- Dick Flanagan, W6OLD GEnie: FLANAGAN UUCP: ...!ucbvax!ucscc!slvblc!dick Voice: +1 408 336 3481 Internet: slvblc!dick@ucscc.UCSC.EDU LORAN: N037 04.7 W122 04.6 USPO: PO Box 155, Ben Lomond, CA 95005
che@pbhyf.UUCP (Mitch Che) (03/18/88)
In article <1157@slvblc.UUCP>, dick@slvblc.UUCP (Dick Flanagan) writes: > I am continually amazed at the level of ignorance (usually accompanied by > an equal measure of arrogance) exhibited by some people on the copyright > vs. public domain issue. I will be as brief as I can so as not to tax > some attention spans. Dick, ouchy, touchy! I thought I'd post a copy of some mail I recently sent (to someone who pointed out the difference between PD and distribution) to clarify my original point: From che Tue Mar 15 21:54:22 1988 To: ptsfa!bellcore!utah-cs!cai.utah.edu!..... Subject: Re: MEAN18 AUTHOR REPLIES TO POSTING: I stand corrected. Sloppy terminology, but then I'm not a lawyer. My point remains the same as in my original posting - whether it's free public distribution, shareware, or whatever (as you pointed out, not "public domain"), copyrighted != "paid for at a store or mailorder." I don't know the person who originally posted the software that started all this, but the implication that he naturally should have known that it was a commercial program because of the copyright is foolish. Someone else posted "a copyright is all you need to know" Give me a break. Let's say you see this: "Copyright 1988 J. Smith" Is this software from a store, mailorder, free distribution, the Net or pirated? If you can't tell from this line alone, then it must be something other than the copyright notice that gives it away. Oh well.... -- Mitch Che Pacific Bell "Tape librarians will mount anything." --------------------------------------- Computerworld disclaimer, disclaimer, too 415-823-2454 uucp:ames!ptsfa!pbhyf!che