silvert@dalcs.UUCP (02/25/87)
George Seto, an active user of my BBS (biomel) but not a UseNet groupie,
asked me to post the following. He raises some good questions, and I
will pass on the net responses. I think that the legal issue about
previously bundled software which gets unbundled is probably pretty
clear, but what people actually do may be more reasonable. The issue is
especially appropriate in light of Simon Poole's decision to distribute
the Uniterm documentation is 1st-Word form, since the program is no
longer PD.
Incidentally, my dealer, Peter Allan at Sector Software in Halifax and
Dartmouth, N. S., telephoned GST to ask about the status of 1st-Word and
the Plus version. Apparently they are having a rough time with Atari,
since Atari has the rights to 1st-Word and is supposed to pay them
royalties, but since Atari is way behind schedule on distribution, they
are losing a bundle. He is a very loyal Atari-only dealer who is
feeling the pinch that Simon speaks of (not helped by the fact that his
Halifax store is right across the street from an Amiga dealer who is
dying to get his first 2000 in!).
Anyway, here is George's message:
@@@ From: George Seto [seto], 87/02/17 21:35:02
I wonder would you post a message asking
about what the NET users consider to be the definition of Public Domain.
Do they feel NeoChrome, or First Word to be in that category?
Do the Public Domain items have to have a notice contained within the program
which is visible to the user? Also what is their feeling about the
magazine programs? Their status as to the Public Domain? ST-Log is the ONLy
one I know of which has a policy statement contained within the magazine
covering the use of the magazine's programs by user groups and bbs's.
--
Bill Silvert
Marine Ecology Laboratory, Dartmouth, NS, Canada
CDN or BITNET: silvert@cs.dal.cdn -- UUCP: ..!{seismo|utai}!dalcs!silvert
ARPA: silvert%dalcs.uucp@seismo.CSS.GOV -- CSNET: silvert%cs.dal.cdn@ubc.csnetwheels@mks.UUCP (02/25/87)
In article <2419@dalcs.UUCP>, silvert@dalcs.UUCP writes: > Also what is their feeling about the > magazine programs? Their status as to the Public Domain? ST-Log is the ONLy > one I know of which has a policy statement contained within the magazine > covering the use of the magazine's programs by user groups and bbs's. I haven't a copy with me, but I'm sure I read a policy statement in "Compute!'s ST Disk & Magazine" (what a name!). The label on the disk clearly says that the only copies to be made are backups, by the buyer of the magazine, for his/her own use. The programs are definitely not public domain. (By the way, said disk and magazine are pretty good. This month's LaserChess program is A-OK.) -- Gerry Wheeler {allegra,decvax,ihnp4}!watmath!mks!wheels Mortice Kern Systems Inc.
manis@ubc-cs.UUCP (02/25/87)
In my understanding, something is public domain if it explicitly contains a
statement denying that the author has any rights in it whatsoever. The lack
of such a statement means that the text is copyrighted (though what that
means in Canada, given the uncertainty of the copyright law when applied to
computer programs, is unclear). From that point of view NeoChrome (which I
got with my ST even though it won't run on a mono monitor) and 1ST Word are
*not* public domain.
Atari probably won't send the police after people who make copies for
personal use (especially given the fair use doctrine), but somebody who
didn't buy a copy has, legally, no right to use it.
As a programmer, I would *never* put a program in the public domain. If I
care enough about the program to distribute it, I care enough to make sure
that my name is associated with it. Therefore, a statement such as the
following is probably appropriate:
"Copyright (C) Sarah Jane Smith, 1987. This program may be freely
distributed to anyone provided that this notice appears on all copies."
It's also worth noticing that most binary programs include copyrighted
materials (the run-time libraries from the compilers). Various software
vendors have various licence agreements; I like TDI's (you must include
a statement that you developed the program with their system).
Back to the original question: since not everybody has 1ST Word, it is
probably best not to distribute documents that are in 1ST Word format.
In any case, that's probably just as good an idea anyway, since users
may want to print them out using a particular formatter (we have a
MicroEmacs manual here which was converted to TeX, for example).phr@mit-hermes.UUCP (02/28/87)
In article <869@ubc-cs.UUCP> manis@ubc-cs.UUCP (Vincent Manis) writes: >As a programmer, I would *never* put a program in the public domain. If I >care enough about the program to distribute it, I care enough to make sure >that my name is associated with it. Therefore, a statement such as the >following is probably appropriate: > > "Copyright (C) Sarah Jane Smith, 1987. This program may be freely > distributed to anyone provided that this notice appears on all copies." Designing copyright notices for free software is trickier than it might at first seem. In order to make sure that all versions of a program remain free, you should specify that your copyright notice must be preserved on all copies, that it is ok for anyone to redistribute the program but the recipient must also get the right to redistribute the program further, that modified versions are ok subject to the preceding, and that the recipient must get *source code* to any modified versions (or at least, source code must be available at media cost+epsilon) with the right to further modify and redistribute it. At FSF, we call such notices "copylefts" and use them on everything we release. The GNU Emacs General Public License is a rather long example of a copyleft. We have a file that we send to people wanting to contribute code to GNU which has some more info on copylefts and why putting code in the public domain is against the interests of free software, although it's mainly about what authors must do in order to let the GNU project be able to use programs they write and is written from that point of view. I'll mail copies on request. Note that the current version (3.8) of a famous formerly-public-domain program (MicroEmacs) is now copyright (free noncommercial redistribution permitted) because the author got tired of companies making proprietary versions and thereby ripping off the public.