stoller@cbmcel.UUCP (Martin S. Stoller) (07/16/90)
I) WHAT? This is a call to the entire AMIGA PROGRAMMING SOCIETY, FRED FISH, and Rom Kernal Manual Authors. I wish to start a discussion (==> NOT A WAR <==) what 'PUBLIC DOMAIN' EXACTLY and LEGALLY means. I don't believe this has been done before; if it has, we should check the validity of the definition. II) WHO? All AMIGA programmers, especially those who have contributed to the 'PUBLIC DOMAIN'; FRED FISH, as he is the leading AMIGA PD'ist; The Author Team of the AMIGA RKM. III) HOW? Either EMAIL me your IDEAS/SUGGESTIONS/DEMANDS/FLAMES/ETC... and I will EVERYDAY (except weekends/holidays- and the time 'tween 21-29 July) post a summary (complete, except for double Ideas; you'll still get mentioned, don't worry), I will not comment unless absolute necessary; OR we can start a group, say COMP.SYS.AMIGA.PDDTEMP (PD Discussion Temporary); OR (bad idea, as already too crowed here) use comp.sys.amiga as our work group. IV) WHY? I have found that the definition of PD be something very fragile. Some believe it to be another word for 'HACKERS PARADISE', other think 'PIRATES FORTUNE' and still others don't even know what to think. Since the 'TETR*S' war, it has become increasingly clear that we of the AMIGA COMMUNITY must define PD, to protect ourselves and Commercialists (as opposed to PD'ists). If PD where defined (legally), then one would know what one could allow to become PD, and what one shouldn't bother programming/creating/etc... V) STARTER: Here are some general ideas, which should sporn everyone to participate: The 'COPYRIGHT', 'LEGAL' etc.. FILES or HEADERS of Files should regulate WHAT a user of PD may do with the data. Each PD software MUST have such a file, with (it is best so) the name of 'COPYRIGHT' or 'LEGAL'. Another word for Public Domain is (and has been since the CBM PET!) 'FREELY DISTRIBUTABLE'. Should this stay a synonym, or should it become separate, or a sub-devision of PD as 'SHARE-WARE' and 'FREE-WARE' have become? A 'WORLD' rate should be settled on for the distribution of PD-DISKS, using the method Fred Fish uses in pricing. The rate should be in US$ or Swiss Francs, whichever is more practical. etc... Ideas wellcome!!! Hope this works, your truly, (I and my employer need not necessarilly agree with everything I can think up. Please send Flames in Asbestos Containers...) -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- | Martin S. Stoller, cbmehq!cbmsub!cbmcel!stoller | | "We maverick maniacal Programmers must be machiavellistically marvelous" | | ...DEAMOND RING... | | "My RELIGION is 'C'; and my GOD is AMIGA..." .M.S.S. | =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) (07/17/90)
In <157@cbmcel.UUCP>, stoller@cbmcel.UUCP (Martin S. Stoller) writes: >I) WHAT? This is a call to the entire AMIGA PROGRAMMING SOCIETY, >FRED FISH, and Rom Kernal Manual Authors. I wish to start a discussion > (==> NOT A WAR <==) >what 'PUBLIC DOMAIN' EXACTLY and LEGALLY means. I don't believe this has >been done before; if it has, we should check the validity of the definition. Exactly and legally I don't know. I do know that under the law, 'Public Domain' means exactly what it says. Something that is public domain may be used in any way, by anyone, at any time. ie. it is in the domain of the public. That means you and I, him and her, including that fellow over there who wants to use it for his own purposes, and the guy beside him who wants to make a million bucks from it. >II) WHO? All AMIGA programmers, especially those who have contributed to >the 'PUBLIC DOMAIN'; FRED FISH, as he is the leading AMIGA PD'ist; The >Author Team of the AMIGA RKM. What has the RKM to do with PD? It is a copyright work. >III) HOW? Either EMAIL me your IDEAS/SUGGESTIONS/DEMANDS/FLAMES/ETC... and >I will EVERYDAY (except weekends/holidays- and the time 'tween 21-29 July) post >a summary (complete, except for double Ideas; you'll still get mentioned, don't >worry), I will not comment unless absolute necessary; OR we can start a group, >say COMP.SYS.AMIGA.PDDTEMP (PD Discussion Temporary); OR (bad idea, as >already too crowed here) use comp.sys.amiga as our work group. Let's not bother, unless it is to serve the purpose of informing those that mistakenly put the words 'Copyright' and 'Public Domain' on the same piece of software, thinking that PD means something other than what it means. >IV) WHY? I have found that the definition of PD be something very fragile. >Some believe it to be another word for 'HACKERS PARADISE', other think 'PIRATES >FORTUNE' and still others don't even know what to think. Since the 'TETR*S' >war, it has become increasingly clear that we of the AMIGA COMMUNITY must >define PD, to protect ourselves and Commercialists (as opposed to PD'ists). >If PD where defined (legally), then one would know what one could allow to >become PD, and what one shouldn't bother programming/creating/etc... It isn't fragile at all. By putting the words 'Public Domain' on a program you wrote, whether it be binaries or source, the author gives ANYONE the right to do ANYTHING they want with it. You (or I, or anyone) can LEGALLY take a program that is PD, and sell it for whatever amount you see fit. If I could convince someone to buy a PD program for $2000, there is no recourse for the author who put it into the public domain in the first place. >V) STARTER: Here are some general ideas, which should sporn everyone to >participate: The 'COPYRIGHT', 'LEGAL' etc.. FILES or HEADERS of Files should >regulate WHAT a user of PD may do with the data. Each PD software MUST have >such a file, with (it is best so) the name of 'COPYRIGHT' or 'LEGAL'. Another >word for Public Domain is (and has been since the CBM PET!) >'FREELY DISTRIBUTABLE'. Should this stay a synonym, or should it become >separate, or a sub-devision of PD as 'SHARE-WARE' and 'FREE-WARE' have become? >A 'WORLD' rate should be settled on for the distribution of PD-DISKS, using >the method Fred Fish uses in pricing. The rate should be in US$ or Swiss >Francs, whichever is more practical. etc... Ideas wellcome!!! 'Freely Distributable' does NOT equal PUBLIC DOMAIN. Period. End of law lesson. An author who owns the copyright on a work may indeed dispose of it in any way he sees fit. This includes the right to dictate the terms and conditions under which you may obtain and use the work. I don't know if the term 'Freely Distributable' has any meaning under the law, but it is generally taken to mean a work on which the copyright holder retains all rights to the work. You cannot legally take a copyright program and decide to sell it without permission from the copyright holder. No such restrictions can apply to a work that is PD. As far as I know, 'Shareware' and 'Freeware' have no LEGAL meanings. They simply serve as an indicator of what sort of program it is. If a program is Shareware, the author had better retain the copyright, and NOT put it into the public domain. Putting a work into the public domain, and attempting to dictate terms and conditions for its further distribution and/or use, is a non-concept. It just doesn't make any sense; it's gibberish. A work is either PD or it is not. If it is, you can do anything you want with it. >Hope this works, your truly, Please define 'work'. If by this you mean you hope to attach your own definition to the words 'Public Domain', you should be prepared to pursue it through the courts, and while you're at it, please try to come up with another term that means the same thing that PD does now. We really do need the term. If you are not willing to pursue it in the courts, I would suggest that we could find better ways of wasting time. -larry -- The raytracer of justice recurses slowly, but it renders exceedingly fine. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | // Larry Phillips | | \X/ lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips | | COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 -or- 76703.4322@compuserve.com | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) (07/18/90)
Sorry to post this, but I tried email and *none* of the sites in your email part are defined in the usenet maps here: }| Martin S. Stoller, cbmehq!cbmsub!cbmcel!stoller | the only relevant 'cbm' I see in our Index is cbmvax... Nonetheless, pressing on: stoller@cbmcel.UUCP (Martin S. Stoller) writes: }I) WHAT? This is a call to the entire AMIGA PROGRAMMING SOCIETY, }FRED FISH, and Rom Kernal Manual Authors. I wish to start a discussion } (==> NOT A WAR <==) }what 'PUBLIC DOMAIN' EXACTLY and LEGALLY means. I don't believe this has }been done before; if it has, we should check the validity of the definition. I think you have to pick a different term than "Public domain". Public domain is perfectly well defined, and almost no "PD" software is actually public domain at all. Public domain means that anyone can make use of the work for anything they please --- the author has renounced all rights to it [or a prior copyright has expired]. Plain and simple. This means that if your program comes up with "copyright <me>" or has other distribution or usage restrictions, it is **NOT** PD at all, but is rather being distributed under some kind of limited-rights arrangement. Yes, this is an interesting topic, but you haven't made clear what you think the actual goal of the discussion ought to be. Beyond PD, once we agree that "really public domain" is what _very_few_ authors really want, I think you'll find that different authors have very different goals, and so there cannot be "just one" perfect set of distribution rights. /Bernie\
nfs1675@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil ( Michael S Figg) (07/18/90)
In article <157@cbmcel.UUCP>, stoller@cbmcel.UUCP (Martin S. Stoller) writes: > I) WHAT? This is a call to the entire AMIGA PROGRAMMING SOCIETY, > FRED FISH, and Rom Kernal Manual Authors. I wish to start a discussion > (==> NOT A WAR <==) > what 'PUBLIC DOMAIN' EXACTLY and LEGALLY means. I don't believe this has > been done before; if it has, we should check the validity of the definition. > Yea, and software piracy has never been discussed here either. I think complete books have been written on what has been said here inregards to what is or isn't public domain. But it doesn't seem like anything was ever settled and so the discussion regenerates itself perpetually. As far as I am concerned, Public Domain software is that which is released by the author without payment required up front. This includes freely distributed, shareware, and other forms of publicly distributed software. This is only the way I see it, others see it differently. ---Mike, -- A man said to the Universe "Sir, I exist!" | Michael Figg DSAC-FSD "However," replied the Universe, | DLA Systems Automation Center "The fact has not created in me a | Columbus, Ohio sense of obligation."- Stephen Crane | mfigg@dsac.dla.mil CIS: 73777,360
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (07/19/90)
[I tried to email ya, but cbmcel doesn't exist. better find another path bud] In comp.sys.amiga Martin Stoller writes: >what 'PUBLIC DOMAIN' EXACTLY and LEGALLY means. I don't believe this has >been done before; if it has, we should check the validity of the definition. It is very well defined, Martin. >If PD where defined (legally), then one would know what one could allow to >become PD, and what one shouldn't bother programming/creating/etc... >V) STARTER: Here are some general ideas, which should sporn everyone to >participate: The 'COPYRIGHT', 'LEGAL' etc.. FILES or HEADERS of Files should >regulate WHAT a user of PD may do with the data. Each PD software MUST have >such a file, with (it is best so) the name of 'COPYRIGHT' or 'LEGAL'. Another >word for Public Domain is (and has been since the CBM PET!) >'FREELY DISTRIBUTABLE'. Should this stay a synonym, or should it become >separate, or a sub-devision of PD as 'SHARE-WARE' and 'FREE-WARE' have become? >A 'WORLD' rate should be settled on for the distribution of PD-DISKS, using >the method Fred Fish uses in pricing. The rate should be in US$ or Swiss >Francs, whichever is more practical. etc... Ideas wellcome!!! Well, Martin, you are starting off way off base. PD, Freeware, and Shareware are completly different things. PD = Public Domain. NOT COPYRIGHTED. you can do anything you want with something in the PD. The Author no longer owns or retains any rights to it. This is the legal definition. It belongs to the Public. ShareWare - A term used to denote freely distributable software that is copyrighted, and in which the author asks to be paid if you find his program usefull Freely Distributable - Any software that you can [legally] copy and pass around without having to buy it. This covers PD, Shareware, and Freeware. This is the term you should be using above when you are talking about PD. You meant Freely Distributable software. Freeware - Software that is free but which the author retains copyright. There is no charge for Freeware (or it would be shareware) but the author retains rights and can make certain restrictions to your use of the program. Like: You can't modify the program and pass the modified program around, or you have to include all files if you pass it on, etc. As far as charging for distributing freely distributable software, as Fred Fish does, he is not charging for the software but for his efforts in compiling them onto the disk. Depending on the person doing the compilation, they may or may not put a compilation copyright on the disk. A compilation copyright means that while you can copy any or all programs off the disk to your hearts content, you can't copy and re-distribute the entire disk as it stands. Fred doesn't do that I believe. You are free to copy Fish disks all you want. That's why Fish disks are everywhere. Or he may have a compilation copyright but may say you can copy the disks all you want as long as you don't try to sell them as *YOUR* collection. 'course theirs nothing stopping you from taking all the fish disks, rearanging the software in different order on different disks and calling it the Stoller Disks and selling them. Unless some of the software on Fish disks has a copyright and a restriction that says something like, "only for distrubution on Fish Disks". -- John Sparks | | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 2400bps. sparks@corpane.UUCP | | PH: (502) 968-DISK A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of. - Ogden Nash -- John Sparks | | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 2400bps. sparks@corpane.UUCP | | PH: (502) 968-DISK A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of. - Ogden Nash
utoddl@uncecs.edu (Todd M. Lewis) (07/19/90)
In article <2333@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil> nfs1675@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil ( Michael S Figg) writes: >As far as I am concerned, Public Domain software is that which is released by >the author without payment required up front. This includes freely distributed, >shareware, and other forms of publicly distributed software. This is only the >way I see it, others see it differently. Yup. Others do see it differently. Lawyers for example. And the courts. But you are free to hold a view of things which does not agree with the facts. It won't be much of a defence in court, though. --Todd
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (07/20/90)
>In article <2333@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil> nfs1675@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil ( Michael S Figg) writes: >>As far as I am concerned, Public Domain software is that which is released by >>the author without payment required up front. This includes freely distributed, >>shareware, and other forms of publicly distributed software. This is only the >>way I see it, others see it differently. Bogus, bogus, bogus. PUBLIC DOMAIN has nothing to do with "payment required up front or not". A work in the PUBLIC DOMAIN is a work in which the author has RELINQUISHED ALL RIGHTS and therefore now belongs to the public at large which therefore can do ANYTHING with it: copy it, sell it, modify it, resell it, sublicense it, ANYTHING. FREELY REDISTRIBUTABLE and SHAREWARE software is NOT PUBLIC DOMAIN. It is software in which the author STILL wishes to mantain SOME RIGHTS, mostly distribution rights and the right to make a profit. Unlike somebody suggested, the definition of Public Domain in the US is pretty straighforward, and you don't need a lawyer to have that explained it to you. Read Peter Cherna's posting to get the full details. Agin this is a pretty much black and white issue: either something is PD or it is NOT. Freely Redistributable and Shareware are NOT synonims for PD. Lots of people make that mistake, and lots of people make the mistake that its is POSSIBLE to have something being PD and STILL restrict the rights to the user (like "this is PD, but no commercial use is allowed"). All those retrictions are ABSOLUTELY INVALID and USELESS, since by declaring something PD, an author relinqueshes ANY and ALL RIGHTS to it. -- Marco -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= "Xerox sues somebody for copying?" -- David Letterman -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
nfs1675@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil ( Michael S Figg) (07/20/90)
In article <26034@usc.edu>, papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: > >In article <2333@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil> nfs1675@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil ( Michael S Figg) writes: > >>As far as I am concerned, Public Domain software is that which is released by > >>the author without payment required up front. This includes freely distributed, > >>shareware, and other forms of publicly distributed software. This is only the > >>way I see it, others see it differently. > > Bogus, bogus, bogus. PUBLIC DOMAIN has nothing to do with "payment required > up front or not". > > -- Marco Yea, I really worded this wrong. -I- don't even agree with what I said. What I was trying to say was that the distribution was public regardless of who retained ownership of software. I guess I got alittle off track. The point I was trying to make with my posting was the other paragraph which nobody has commented on. The orginal poster mentioned that he thought this subject hadn't been discussed here before and to me it seems like it has been beaten to death in the past. This new discussion looks like it is going in the same direction also. Which might be partially my blame ... ;) ---Mike, -- A man said to the Universe "Sir, I exist!" | Michael Figg DSAC-FSD "However," replied the Universe, | DLA Systems Automation Center "The fact has not created in me a | Columbus, Ohio sense of obligation."- Stephen Crane | mfigg@dsac.dla.mil CIS: 73777,360
josef@augs.ccs.imp.com (Josef Egloff) (07/22/90)
>In article <26034@usc.edu> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: >>In article <2333@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil> nfs1675@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil ( Michael S Figg) writes: >>>As far as I am concerned, Public Domain software is that which is released by >>>the author without payment required up front. This includes freely distributed, >>>shareware, and other forms of publicly distributed software. This is only the >>>way I see it, others see it differently. first, I find this a good idea, to talk about public domain. Now we in our usergroup (Amiga Usergroup Switzerland) have defined a new term for 'public domain', we call it FD -> Freely Distributable. Thsi means only that this software can be copied without any costs. This doesn't mean the software *is* free! We have done this, because here in europe is a big confusion about the term public domain. Most peoples think that's software wich can be copied and used without to pay for it. This confusion is produced by some german computermagazines (I wouldn't say names but there is the big money behind). Also we have the problem with some 'pd-distributors' they sell programs for prices that every programmer can be lucky, but this is also done with shareware. Several dealers sell shareware programs for about 30 to 40 DM (20 - 35 $), and the only work they had to do was to copy the program from Freds AmigaLibDisk to an empty disk. I never had heard, that they gave a programmer (wich has done the shareware program) some money. So some of the programmers here went to the court, with less success :-(. This has initiated a big talking about PD, Freeware and Shareware, and the first (I think) PD-war in the computers history. Every programmer is angry with the dealers and vice versa. That's my story, I hope there will be a new disussion about PD and that we can define some standards. cu josef -- < Josef Egloff | USENET: josef@augs.ccs.imp.com > < Pfaffnernweg 19 | PATH: impch!accsys!augs!josef > < CH - 4852 Rothrist | > < Switzerland | AUGS: as SYSOP (acc #1) >