seitz@netcom.UUCP (Matthew Seitz) (01/26/91)
In article <1885@quando.quantum.de> elliott@quando.UUCP (C. David Elliott) writes: > >If you have a look at some public domain software and read the documentation >files and such like, you will usually see the author saying something like > >>> This program is public domain and should not be sold for profit. > >To me this means pretty clearly that public domain software shouldn't be sold >to make a profit (and if you buy any at profit making-prices perhaps you >should look around a bit better first because - at least in the UK and >Germany - many PD libraries exist which are run as non-profit making >organisations). > As soon as an author says a program is public domain, he loses all control over it. The phrase "should not be sold for profit" is just the author's opinion and carries no legal force. Whether it carries any moral force is up to the individual. If someone wants to sell a public domain program, that's between him and the buyer, and there's no legal reason he can't do it. If you really want to insure that a program can't be sold for profit, keep the copyright. Then you can place as many or as few restrictions as you want on it's distribution, including prohibiting sale for profit. >Dave. >-- >+---------------------+ >| C. David Elliott | >| elliott@quantum.de | >+---------------------+ -- Matthew Seitz seitz@netcom.UUCP netcom!seitz
wolf@fb14vax.sbsvax.uucp (Wolfgang Huwig) (01/30/91)
In article <21933@netcom.UUCP> seitz@netcom.UUCP (Matthew Seitz) writes: |In article <1885@quando.quantum.de> elliott@quando.UUCP (C. David Elliott) writes: |> |>If you have a look at some public domain software and read the documentation |>files and such like, you will usually see the author saying something like |> |>>> This program is public domain and should not be sold for profit. |> |>To me this means pretty clearly that public domain software shouldn't be sold |>to make a profit (and if you buy any at profit making-prices perhaps you |>should look around a bit better first because - at least in the UK and |>Germany - many PD libraries exist which are run as non-profit making |>organisations). Really? If you mean the - most often academic - sites which act as ftp or mail servers that's true. But a look at those ST related mags (at least here in Germany) implies that there's a really big market for PD. I guess many ST users don't know another way to get this software and so they pay 8 to 10 times the price of an empty disk (without shipping). This seems a bit more than the costs for copying. Some authors are aware of this fact and explicitly forbid this kind of distribution. Well done. Are there any other ways? Perhaps user clubs? How is this done in other countries? |As soon as an author says a program is public domain, he loses all control over |it. The phrase "should not be sold for profit" is just the author's opinion |and carries no legal force. Whether it carries any moral force is up to the |individual. If someone wants to sell a public domain program, that's between |him and the buyer, and there's no legal reason he can't do it. |If you really want to insure that a program can't be sold for profit, keep the |copyright. Then you can place as many or as few restrictions as you want on |it's distribution, including prohibiting sale for profit. I agree. Moreover, I think real PD software hardly exists. Most authors keep the copyright or declare their programs as 'freeware' or even 'shareware'. Btw., does naming them so carry any legal force (without mentioning the copyright)? -Wolfgang +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Wolfgang Huwig CS Dept./AI Lab University of Saarland | + +-------------------------------------+ | Internet: wolf@cs.uni-sb.de | This space intentionally left blank | +-----------------------------+-------------------------------------+ -- +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Wolfgang Huwig CS Dept./AI Lab University of Saarland | + +-------------------------------------+ | Internet: wolf@cs.uni-sb.de | This space intentionally left blank | +-----------------------------+-------------------------------------+
seitz@netcom.UUCP (Matthew Seitz) (02/01/91)
In article <WOLF.91Jan30154616@fb14vax.sbsvax.uucp> wolf@fb14vax.sbsvax.uucp (Wolfgang Huwig) writes: >Moreover, I think real PD software hardly exists. Most authors >keep the copyright or declare their programs as 'freeware' or even >'shareware'. Btw., does naming them so carry any legal force (without >mentioning the copyright)? Nope. The copyright must me explicitly mentioned. "Freeware" and "shareware" have no legal meaning. -- Matthew Seitz seitz@netcom.UUCP netcom!seitz